Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

MEMBER SWORN.

A Member took and subscribed the Oath.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Hastings Corporation General Powers Bill (by Order),

North Staffordshire Road Transport Board Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

West Ham Corporation Bill (by Order), Read a Second time, and committed.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Somerset and Wilts) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Wisbech Joint Isolation Hospital District) Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (SOUTH NOTTINGHAMSHIRE JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the South Nottinghamshire joint Hospital District," presented by Sir Kingsley Wood; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 89.]

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

BRITISH COTTON GOODS (TARIFF).

Sir Nairne Stewart Sandeman: asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will make representations to the Government of India to the effect that a 20 per cent. tariff on British cotton goods entering India is unnecessary for the protection of Indian industry, in view of the fact that Indian cotton goods are competing

with British cotton goods in the Colonial markets without special protection or concessions?

The Under-Secretary of State for India (Mr. Butler): My Noble Friend regrets that he is unable to act as suggested. As stated by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade last Tuesday, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Moss Side (Mr. Duckworth), the point will be borne in mind in the negotiations for a new trade agreement between this country and India.

Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: Now that the unilateral fiscal convention is out of the way, surely something can be done to get this tariff reduced, so that Lancashire may have a chance of getting back some of the trade of which we were deprived by the fiscal convention?

Mr. Butler: As was said by my hon. Friend, there will be an opportunity for negotiation this summer.

COTTON MILLS (WAGES).

Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can give any figures showing an increase or a reduction in the wages paid in cotton mills in India during the last two years?

Mr. Butler: I will ask the Government of India whether they have any statistics such as my hon. Friend requires.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (BRITISH TRADE MARKS).

Mr. Chorlton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the decision of the Chinese Ministry of Industries in refusing protection to a well-known British trade mark registered for electric lamps which is being used by a Chinese firm on a different class of goods; and what action he proposes to take for the protection of British traders whose trade marks are infringed?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Viscount Cranborne): I have consulted His Majesty's Representative at Peking who states that no recent instance of the nature described by my hon. Friend has been brought to his notice. I understand, however, that a trade mark registered in respect of electric lamps by an American concern was


last year imitated on cigarettes. So far as I am aware, no British interests were involved.

Mr. Chorlton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the refusal of the Chinese authorities to protect a trade nark registered in China by a British firm for soap-class goods which is being used by a Chinese firm for face cream; and whether he will draw the attention of the Chinese Government to the injustice of this decision?

Viscount Cranborne: The difficulties experienced by British firms in this connection arise out of the provisions of the relevant article of the Chinese Trade Mark Law, as applied by the Chinese Courts; it is held that the exclusive right to the use of a trade mark is confined to the class of goods specified in the application for registration, and cannot be extended to cover articles in other categories. The attention of the competent department of the Chinese Government has frequently been drawn to this unsatisfactory state of affairs, and an assurance has recently been received that the matter will receive attention when the Trade Mark Law is next revised.

Mr. Chorlton: Can the Noble Lord ascertain within a reasonable time the view of the Chinese Government?

Viscount Cranborne: I am at present expecting a full report on the subject from His Majesty's Ambassador at Peking.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCARNO POWERS (BRITISH NOTE).

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any reply has been received from the Belgian Government to the British note of 4th November, 1936; and whether he will communicate its contents to the House?

Viscount Cranborne: The answer to the first part of the question is, Yes, Sir. This note forms part of a preliminary exchange of views between the five Locarno Powers. It has been decided that these preliminary exchanges of view should be regarded as confidential, and the hon.

Member will, I am sure, realise that this decision is in the general interest of the negotiations themselves.

Mr. Henderson: Can nothing be done to prevent an impasse between the German Government and the Italian Government; and will the Minister assure the House that no question of amour propre will prevent the British Government seeking to take further action with a view to bringing these countries into line?

Viscount Cranborne: I assure the hon. Member that His Majesty's Government will do everything that is possible and appropriate.

Mr. Henderson: Will His Majesty's Government put a blunt question to these two Governments as to whether or not they intend to reply to the note?

Viscount Cranborne: It is for His Majesty's Government to say what is likely to produce the best results.

Miss Wilkinson: Why?

Oral Answers to Questions — THE CORONATION.

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what foreign Governments are being invited to send representatives to attend the Coronation; what foreign Governments have already appointed their representatives; and the names of the representatives so appointed?

Viscount Cranborne: Invitations to send representatives to attend the Coronation have been sent to all Heads of States who are in diplomatic relations with His Majesty, and to certain independent States which are in treaty relations with this country without diplomatic representation. The information asked for in the second and third parts of the question is somewhat voluminous and I will therefore, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Griffiths: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask him whether an invitation has been sent to the Government of Spain?

Viscount Cranborne: I understand, yes.

Mr. Thorne: Has an invitation been sent to Abyssinia?

Viscount Cranborne: I understand, yes.

Following is the information:

List of the foreign Governments who have already appointed their representatives and of the names of the representatives appointed.

Argentine Republic:

H.E. Dr. Tomas le Breton, Special Ambassador, representing the Argentine Nation (Argentine Ambassador in Paris).

Belgium:

H.R.H. The Count of Flanders. G.C.V.O., brother of and representing His Majesty the King of the Belgians.

Bolivia:

Senor Don Victor Carlos Aramayo, representing the Republic of Bolivia (former Bolivian Minister in London).

Brazil:

H.E. Senhor Raul Regis de Oliveira, G.B.E., representing the President of the Republic of the United States of Brazil (Brazilian Ambassador in London).

Bulgaria:

H.R.H. The Prince of Preslay, brother of and representing His Majesty the King of the Bulgarians.

Chile:

H.E. Senor Don Agustin Edwards, G.B.E., representing the Republic of Chile (Chilean Ambassador in London).

China:

Dr. K'ung Hsiang Hsi, representing the National Government of the Republic of China (Vice-Chairman of the Executive Yuan and Minister of Finance).

Czechoslovak Republic:

Dr. Milan Hodza, representing the Czechoslovak Republic (Prime Minister).

Denmark:

H.R.H. The Crown Prince of Denmark, G.C.V.O., son of and representing His Majesty the King of Denmark and Iceland.

Ecuador:

Senor Don Antonio Quevedo, Special Envoy, representing the Republic of Ecuador (Minister Designate of Ecuador in London).

Egypt:

H.H. Prince Mohammed Ali, G.C.B., G.C.M.G., Prince Regent, cousin of and representing His Majesty the King of Egypt.

Estonia:

General Johan Laidoner, K.C.M.G., representing the Republic of Estonia.

Greece:

H.R.H. The Crown Prince of Greece, brother of and representing His Majesty the King of the Hellenes.

Guatemala:

Senor Dr. Don José Matos, Special Envoy, representing the Republic of Guatemala (former Minister for Foreign Affairs).

Hayti:

Monsieur Ernest G. Chauvet, representing the Republic of Hayti (Minister Resident in London).

Honduras:

Senor Don Tiburcio Carias, representing the Republic of Honduras (son of the President).

Iran:

H.E. Hassan Esfandiary, representing His Imperial Majesty the Shahinshah of Iran (President of the Majlis).

Iraq:

H.R.H. The Amir Abdul Illah, uncle of and representing His Majesty the King of Iraq (son of His late Majesty King Ali of the Hedjaz).

Japan:

H.I.H. Prince Chichibu, G. C. V. O., and H.I.H. Princess Chichibu. Brother of and representing His Majesty the Emperor of Japan.

Latvia:

Monsieur Vilhelms Munters, representing the President of the Republic of Latvia (Minister for Foreign Affairs).

Lithuania:

H.E. Monsieur Stasys Lozoraitis, representing the President of the Republic of Lithuania (Minister for Foreign Affairs).

Luxemburg:

H.R.H. The Prince of Luxemburg, Consort of and representing Her Royal Highness the Grand Duchess of Luxemburg.

Mexico:

Senor Don Primo Villa Michel, Special Envoy, representing the United States of Mexico (Minister Designate of Mexico in London).

Nepal:

Commanding-General Sir Kaiser Shumshere Jung Bahadur Rana, K.B.E., representing His Majesty the Maharajadhiraja of Nepal (nephew of H.H. the Maharaja of Nepal).

Netherlands:

H.R.H. Princess Juliana of the Netherlands, daughter of and representing Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands, and H.R.H. Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands.

Nicaragua:

Senor Dr. Don Constantino Herdocia, representing the Republic of Nicaragua (Nicaraguan Minister in London).

Norway:

H.R.H. The Crown Prince of Norway, G.C.V.O., and H.R.H. The Crown Princess. Son of and representing His Majesty the King of Norway.

Panama:

Senor Dr. Don Arnulfo Arias, representing the President of the Republic of Panama (Minister of Panama in London).

Paraguay:

Senor Dr. Don Rogelio Espinosa, Special Envoy, representing the Republic of Paraguay (Chargé d'Affaires ad. int. of Paraguay in London).

Portugal:

H.E. Senhor Dr. Armindo Rodrigues de Sttau Monteiro, Special Ambassador, representing the Portuguese Republic (Portuguese Ambassador in London).

Salvador:

Senor Don Raul Contreras, representing the President of the Republic of Salvador (Salvadorean Minister to Spain and the Vatican).

San Marino:

Melvill A. Jamieson, Esq., Special Envoy, representing the Republic of San Marino (Consul-General of San Marino in London).

Saudi Arabia:

H.R.H. The Emir Saud, G.B.E., son of and representing His Majesty the King of Saudi Arabia.

Siam:

H.R.H. Prince Chula Chakrabongs, cousin of and representing His Majesty the King of Siam.

Soviet Union:

Monsieur M. M. Litvinov, representing the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs).

Sweden:

H.R.H. The Crown Prince of Sweden, G.C.B., G.C.V.O. (Royal Victorian Chain) and H.R.H. The Crown Princess. (Son of and representing His Majesty the King of Sweden.)

Switzerland:

Monsieur Charles R. Paravicini, Special Envoy, representing the Swiss Confederation (Swiss Minister in London).

Turkey:

General Ismet Inonu, representing the Turkish Republic (President of the Council).

United States:

The Hon. James Watson Gerard, G.C.B., representing the United States of America (a former United States Ambassador in Berlin).

Uruguay:

Senor Dr. Don Luis Alberto de Herrera, G.B.E., representing the Oriental Republic of the Uruguay.

Venezuela:

Senor Dr. Don Caracciolo Parra-Perez, representing the United States of Venezuela (Venezuelan Minister in London).

Yemen:

H.R.H. Seif al Islam Husein, son of and representing His Majesty the King of the Yemen.

Yugoslavia:

H.R.H. Prince Paul of Yugoslavia, G.C.V.O. (Royal Victorian Chain) and H.R.H. Princess Olga (Prince Regent). Uncle of and representing His Majesty the King of Yugoslavia.

Miss Wilkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether invitations to attend the Coronation have now been sent to the various European countries; and has he yet received any intimation as to who will be the chief representative of Germany at the ceremony?

Viscount Cranborne: The answer to the first part of the question is, Yes, Sir. No intimation has so far been received as to who will be the representative of Germany at the ceremony.

Miss Wilkinson: Cannot we have some guarantee that this country will not be insulted by the presence of General Goering?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot allow a question like that.

Lieut.-Colonel Moore: On a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to put a question of that kind, with regard to another country—

Mr. Speaker: I have already refused to allow the question.

Captain Peter Macdonald: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now give the names of the selected representatives of all the Colonies, with the respective detachments of troops from each, which have been invited to take part in the Coronation?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The Colonial military contingent which will take part in the Coronation Procession will consist of detachments of officers, British noncommissioned officers, and African, Arab or Malay non-commissioned officers, from the permanent Forces in the Colonial dependencies: namely, the Royal West African Frontier Force, the King's African Rifles, the Northern Rhodesia Regiment, the Transjordan Frontier Force and the Malay Regiment, and of officers and noncommissioned officers from the various local volunteer defence forces. The total number of officers and non-commissioned officers forming the contingent will be in the neighbourhood of 120. I am not at present in a position to furnish the detailed names of all the officers and noncommissioned officers who have been selected for this purpose by the several Colonial Governments.

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether His Majesty's Government will signalise the forthcoming Coronation by introducing a further instalment of the five-day working week in Government Departments; and whether he will introduce legislation to enable banks, which so desire, to follow this example?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): I regret that I cannot hold out any hope of the adoption of these suggestions.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend remember them sympathetically?

Mr. Thorne: Is the Financial Secretary aware that you have got the power if you have got the will?

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL WATERS (THREE MILE LIMIT).

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with which foreign countries agreements have been entered into to the effect that territorial waters shall be greater than three miles?

Viscount Cranborne: No such agreements have been concluded by His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Day: Is the Noble Lord aware that the fishing industry is very much concerned about this matter?

Viscount Cranborne: I am aware of that.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFGHANISTAN.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House information regarding the conversations which took place between His Royal Highness the Sirdar Mohamed Hashim Khan, Prime Minister of Afghanistan, and members of His Majesty's Government during the recent visit of His Royal Highness to London; what were the subjects discussed; and what was the attitude of the Afghan Government towards the road building programme which the Government of India is carrying out in the Khaisora Valley of Waziristan?

Viscount Cranborne: My right hon. Friend was glad to take the opportunity of His Royal Highness's informal visit of courtesy to London to discuss with him general questions of interest to the Afghan Government. The matter mentioned in the last part of the question was not discussed with His Royal Highness.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Lieut.-Commander Tufnell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that further volunteering for Spain is to be banned, the British Government will suggest to


the Non-Intervention Committee that all the volunteers actually on the spot shall now be recalled by their respective Governments or lose the rights of citizenship?

Viscount Cranborne: The question of the recall of foreign volunteers now in Spain has already been raised in the Non-Intervention Committee, and His Majesty's Government have made it clear that they are prepared to take part in an early discussion of this matter. It would at present be premature to forecast what detailed measures to this end will be discussed.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Captain Cobb: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that many ex-service men of the Great War are said to be becoming prematurely aged or incapacitated as a result of the general aftereffects of their war service and should receive pension for their condition; and whether he will make a statement upon the attitude of his Department to such cases and the possibility of pensions being granted to them?

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): My attention has been drawn to certain statements to the effect quoted, and as they may tend to rouse hopes that can only be disappointed, I am glad to have an opportunity of making the position clear. I have no power to award compensation for disablement other than such as results from specific injuries or ailments which it has been established are traceable to war service. So far as the question relates to other conditions not so established, consideration would be the concern of other services which are not within my statutory powers and on which I am not in a position to express any opinion. I may say, however, that such inquiry as I have made into the matter has not disclosed any evidence from general medical experience which would support the suggestion that there is any greater likelihood of premature incapacity among ex-service men as such than in other sections of the civil community of similar age. Inquiries are, I am informed, being pursued by the British Legion and other ex-service men's associations the results of which it is their intention to lay before the Minister or Ministers whose Departments may be concerned.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the fact that the benefit of the doubt goes against the ex-service man at present, will the Minister inquire into the regulations and change them, so that the ex-service man will get the benefit of the doubt?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the benefit of the doubt does not go against the ex-service man.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

MILK MARKETING SCHEME.

Mr. Sexton: asked the Minister of Agriculture what further action has been taken by the Milk Marketing Board in the case of William Mitcheson, of Burnhope Flatts farm, Burnhope, County Durham, whose three cows were sold for 7s. under a county court order; and whether he will institute an inquiry into the whole circumstances under Section 15 (2) of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I am informed that the Milk Marketing Board are taking further action under the procedure authorised by rules of the court for the recovery of the amount due from Mr. Mitcheson. With regard to the second part of the question, I am advised that the matter is not one appropriate for investigation by an Agricultural Marketing Reorganisation Commission under the provisions of Section 15 (2) of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931.

Mr. Sexton: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with the Milk Marketing Board to use their clemency in this case, as the man, I believe, is not unreasonable in the matter?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Member will appreciate that in connection with these levies, the board must operate justly between all the producers, those who pay and those who do not.

Mr. T. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman have this Section 15 (2) looked into, to see whether or not the Milk Marketing Board have the power to take the steps which they have taken quite recently?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir.

POULTRY INDUSTRY.

Sir Gifford Fox: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether any research has


been carried out to ascertain whether it is possible to carry on the poultry industry in this country on the basis of the present prices of eggs and foodstuffs, respectively; and, if not, whether he will arrange for research to be carried out in this respect forthwith?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Research into the costs and returns of commercial egg and poultry farming has been in progress for some years at various advisory centres, and the results are published from time to time. The hon. Baronet will appreciate that prices of eggs and feeding-stuffs are only two of the factors which govern the economic position of the industry.

Sir G. Fox: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the wholesale price of feeding-stuffs has gone up nearly 50 per cent. in the last 12 months and that the price of eggs has gone down compared with 12 months ago, and that the whole industry is faced with bankruptcy?

Mr. Morrison: As regards the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I am glad to say that the cost of feeding-stuffs was slightly easier recently, and as regards the second part of his supplementary question, the answer to my hon. Friend is in the negative. The price of National Mark Standard eggs on 19th February, in London, was 16s. 6d. per long hundred, against 15s. per long hundred last year and 13s. per long hundred at the same date in the two previous years.

Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: Will my right hon. Friend tell us how many recruits from the labour-training centres are flowing into this egg business?

Mr. Morrison: I could not say that without notice.

Mr. George Griffiths: Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's previous answer, is it not a fact that the foreigner is always paying for tariffs instead of the British trading interests?

Mr. Lambert: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will introduce legislation to secure for poultry producers a stable price commensurate with the cost of production for their products?

Mr. Morrison: The costs of production of poultry products are influenced by many factors, such as weather and world

movements in feeding stuff prices, for which the Government are not responsible, and they also vary considerably from one type of producer to another. I am not clear, therefore, how my right hon. Friend would propose to attain the objective to which he refers, but if he would care to let me have any concrete proposals I will, of course, consider them.

Mr. Lambert: Is it not the duty of the Government to submit concrete proposals to secure a stable price commensurate with the cost of production in the poultry industry?

Mr. T. Williams: Would it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to introduce legislation to produce a stable price to the egg producers exclusively, and to the farmers?

Mr. Lambert: What about the coal people?

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Minister of Agriculture what was the number of eggs imported in 1936 from countries from which imports are not controlled by trade agreements; and whether, in view of the serious plight of the poultry industry, he will take steps to secure the prohibition or reduction of such imports?

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): I have been asked to reply. With my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the countries from which eggs were imported last year and with whom we have no trade agreements in which eggs are specifically mentioned, together with the quantities of eggs imported from such countries. I would point out, however, that we have commercial treaties with most of these countries under which they are accorded most-favoured-nation rights. As regards the second part of the question, there is nothing that I can usefully add to the replies that have been given by my right hon. Friends, the Minister of Agriculture and the President of the Board of Trade, to recent questions on the subject.

Sir A. Knox: Are the Government then going to let this whole industry go bankrupt?

Sir Francis Acland: Could not the hon. and gallant Gentleman add to the report which he has indicated that he will be


able to make anything about the subsidisation of egg exportation from the countries concerned?

Captain Crookshank: If the right hon. Gentleman wants any other information and puts down a request for it on the Paper, I will see what can be done in the matter.

Sir A. Knox: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman answer my question?

Following is the list:


Imports during 1936 from countries with whom we have no trade agreements in which eggs are specifically mentioned.


Eggs in Shell.


Country.
Great hundreds.


Irish Free State
…
…
2,563,216


Australia
…
…
1,634,919


South Africa
…
…
371,705


Canada
…
…
103,348


New Zealand
…
…
34,279


Other Empire Countries
…
…
4,504


Netherlands
…
…
3,799,534


Roumania
…
…
1,168,617


Belgium
…
…
539,927


Yugoslavia
…
…
127,428


Germany
…
…
41,150


France
…
…
902


Egypt
…
…
256,854


United States of America
…
…
1,167


Argentina
…
…
368,979


Uruguay
…
…
249,477


Brazil
…
…
88,386


Chile
…
…
21,180


China
…
…
1,356,888


Japan
…
…
150


Other foreign countries
…
…
686

Eggs not in Shell.



Cwts.


British countries (not separately distinguished)
7,044


China
862,021


Other foreign countries (not separately distinguished)
20,932

Mr. Roland Robinson: asked the Minister of Agriculture what organisations exist in Great Britain for the co-operative grading and marketing of eggs, and how many poultry farming concerns are members of such organisations?

Mr. Morrison: I am collecting the information desired by my hon. Friend and hope to have it ready to circulate in the
OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Mathers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the information asked for in these questions is continually altering because of the fact that a very large number of people engaged in poultry farming are going out of business?

Following is the information:

The following agricultural co-operative organisations grade and pack eggs under the National Mark schemes in operation in England and Wales and in Scotland:

England:

Berks. Co-operative Poultry Producers, Limited, Wokingham, Berks.

Thames Valley Poultry Producers, Limited, Didcot, Berks.

Pumpsaint and District Agricultural Co-operative Society, Limited, Lampeter, Cardiganshire.

Bude and District Poultry Producers, Limited, Bude, Cornwall.

Cornwall Farmers' Egg Marketing Society, Limited, Wadebridge, Cornwall.

Poultry Farmers of Devon, Limited, Callington, Cornwall.

The Beaminster and District Collecting Depot, Limited, Beaminster, Dorset.

Northern Agricultural Co-operative Society, Limited, Gateshead, Durham.

Melton Mowbray and District Farmers' Association, Limited, Melton Mowbray, Leicester.

Stamford and District Co-operative Egg and Poultry Society, Limited, Stamford, Lincoln.

Norfolk Egg Producers, Limited. Norwich.

Northamptonshire Egg Producers, Limited, Northampton.

Clynderwen and District Farmers' Association, Limited, Clynderwen, Pembroke.

Shropshire Egg Producers, Limited, Craven Arms, Shropshire.

Framlingham and Eastern Counties Co-operative Egg and Poultry Society, Limited, Framlingham, Suffolk.

Sappa, Limited, Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk.

Heathfield and District Poultry Keepers' Association, Limited, Heath-field, Sussex.

Stonegate and South Eastern Farmers' Co-operative Society, Limited, Stone-gate, Ticehurst, Sussex.

Pershore Co-operative Fruit Market, Limited, Pershore, Worcester.

East Yorkshire Farmers, Limited, Beverley, Yorks.

Scotland:

Aberdeenshire Egg Producers, Limited, Turriff.

Caithness Egg Marketing Society, Limited, Thurso.

Dunvegan Egg Depot, Dunvegan, Skye.

In addition to these there are a number of similar organisations in both countries which do not market their eggs under the National Mark. Egg grading and packing is also carried on by various agricultural co-operative societies as a part of their ordinary business. I regret that I have no precise details of the membership of these societies generally.

Mr. Robinson: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many poultry-farming concerns there are in Great Britain; and what has been their annual egg production during the past three years.

Mr. Morrison: As the reply includes a table of figures, I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Earl Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend, in circulating that report, designate the number of poultry keepers who are very small men, men in receipt of a total income lower than that of many wage-earners?

Mr. Morrison: The question on the Paper does not ask for that particular information, but if the Noble Lord desires it, I shall be glad to furnish it as far as I can.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that many ex-service men were persuaded to put their gratuities into this industry and are now being ruined?

Statement giving the average prices of certain kinds of feeding stuffs in England and Wales, in half-yearly periods, 1934 to 1936.


Period (six months).
Wheat* per cwt.
Oats* per cwt.
Maize, Argentina† per 480 lb.
Bran, British† per ton (2,240 lb.).
Weatings† per ton (2,240 lb.).
Fish Meal† per ton (2,240 lb.).





s.
d.
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


January-June, 1934
…
…
4
7
6
0
1
0
2
5
9
6
5
9
0
16
4
0


July-December, 1934
…
…
5
0
6
6
1
3
2
6
7
6
6
13
0
16
9
0


January-June, 1935
…
…
4
11
7
0
1
0
8
5
18
0
5
19
6
15
16
0


July-December, 1935
…
…
5
5
6
4
0
17
5
6
0
6
6
9
0
15
3
0


January-June, 1936
…
…
6
5
6
0
0
18
8
6
1
0
0
1
0
14
18
0


July-December, 1936
…
…
7
11
6
9
1
4
2
6
15
6
7
6
0
15
2
0


* Average prices returned at markets scheduled under the Corn Returns Act, 1882, and the Corn Sales Act, 1921.


† Average prices at wholesale markets at Bristol, Hull, Liverpool and London. Prices are on mill or store a erage for bran, weatings and fish meal, relate to quantities of not less than 2 tons.

Sir A. Knox: Will the Government act now that the Communist party has taken this matter up?

Following is the reply:

The latest information available regarding the number of farmers keeping poultry relates to the year 1931, when fowls were kept on approximately 300,000 agricultural holdings exceeding one acre in extent in England and Wales in respect of which returns were received under the Agricultural Returns Act, 1925. No comparable figures are available relating to Great Britain as a whole, and there is no reliable information as to the number of persons who keep poultry on holdings of one acre and less including gardens and backyards.

As regards the second part of the question, the following statement shows the estimated production of eggs in each of the past three years in England and Wales and in Great Britain.


Year (June to May).


England and Wales Millions.
Great Britain Millions.


1933–34
…
…
3,779
4,241


1934–35
…
…
3,736
4,194


1935–36
…
…
3,590
(a)


(a) Not yet available.

Note.—The above figures include the estimated production of eggs on holdings one acre and less in extent.

Mr. Robinson: asked the Minister of Agriculture what has been the course of the price of poultry feeding stuffs in Great Britain during the past three years?

Mr. Morrison: As the reply involves a table of figures, I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the table:

Major Hills: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that Danish and so-called fresh Rumanian eggs are on offer at 6s. per 120 free on rail to London; and whether he can expedite the report of the Import Duties Advisory Committee so as to save from ruin the many small poultry-rearers who have embarked their whole capital in the industry?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I have been asked to reply. I do not know the source from which the figures quoted by my right hon. and gallant Friend have been obtained. Prices of imported eggs in the early part of this year were low, but they have recently risen to more normal levels. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer my right hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest and Christchurch (Major Mills) and the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Touche) on 16th February.

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the large increase in the imports of eggs since the standstill arrangement was terminated, he will consider a renewal of such an arrangement in order that the poultry industry may be saved from bankruptcy?

Captain Crookshank: I have been asked to reply. I would refer to the reply which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade gave on 9th February to the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Captain Heilgers).

Mr. Turton: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that I asked this question last Tuesday of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, who said that it was a question that should be addressed to the Minister of Agriculture, and that now that I have put it to the Minister of Agriculture he refers me to the Minister of Mines, and the Minister of Mines refers me to the previous answer?

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Does this indicate the addled state of the Government?

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Agriculture what arrangements exist in this country for placing home-laid eggs in cold storage?

Mr. Morrison: I am not clear as to the exact nature of the information regarding the cold storage of eggs which my hon. Friend desires, but if he will be good enough to give me details of his requirements, I shall be happy to supply him with such information as is available.

SEED POTATOES.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Minister of Agriculture the average price per cwt. of "King Edward" seed potatoes in the important markets; whether there is any shortage; and, if so, have there been any imports of seed potatoes recently?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Average prices of "King Edward" seed potatoes are not readily available, but I am not not aware of any shortage of supplies. I understand that during the months of December and January licences were issued for the importation of about 2,100 tons of seed potatoes.

Mr. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in certain areas of this country would-be buyers of seed potatoes find extreme difficulty in obtaining them?

Mr. Morrison: I am not aware of that, but if the hon. Gentleman will give me the information, I shall be very grateful.

WHITE FISH INDUSTRY (GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS).

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has now considered the second report of the Sea Fish Commission dealing with white fish; and whether he has any statement to make as to the Government's intentions with regard to it?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The Government have now given full consideration to the second report of the Sea Fish Commission—of which Sir Andrew Duncan was chairman—dealing with the white fish industry.
The Commission summed up the present circumstances of the industry in the following terms:
It is clear that, on the whole, there is not in this important food product a remunerative return to the producer, or a satisfactory result in quality and price to the consumer; and that, while those engaged, in the distributive sections are not gaining undue profits, intermediate marketing expenses are, in total, a heavy burden.


From its survey of the facts, the Commission drew the conclusion that considerably improved organisation, distributive as well as productive, was an indispensable condition for the prosperity of the industry, and that such improved organisation could not be achieved without legislative sanction and they made recommendations with that end in view. These recommendations have been discussed with representatives of the main body of producers and of various sections of distributors, including wholesale fish merchants, fishmongers, and fish friers. The distributors have expressed general approval of the recommendations. The producers, through the British Trawlers' Federation, have represented that their case is too urgent to await the issue of the necessarily lengthy process of organising the distributive trades. They have, accordingly, submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself a scheme for the regulation of production and marketing which is based on the principles embodied in the Agricultural Marketing Acts, and have asked for the necessary powers to give effect to it.
The Government regard this as reasonable and propose to introduce legislation which will enable such a scheme to be brought forward as early as possible. This scheme would, however, be only the first step towards an effort at reorganisation of the whole industry. The legislation will, therefore, provide for the constitution of an impartial body analagous to the Commission recommended by the Sea Fish Commission. It would be the duty of the Commission to assist in the organisation of the distributors, to consider and recommend to the Ministers schemes for the improvement of distribution, to supervise the operation of such schemes as well as of the producers' scheme, and generally to promote co-operation among all sections of the industry. Provision will also be made for the constitution of a representative Central Board or Joint Council, somewhat similar to that recommended by the Sea Fish Commission, to consider matters of common interest to the industry and trade as a whole. The Government's proposals, as will be seen, are based on the same general principles as those underlying the recommendations of the Sea Fish Commission, and the discussions we have had with representatives of the various sections of the industry lead us

to believe they will be generally acceptable to them.
The recommendations of the Sea Fish Commission included important proposals regarding the inspection and safety of fishing vessels and the conditions of service of the crews of trawlers, with special reference to methods of payment. The first of these two points is being dealt with by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, partly by administrative action, and partly by legislation at present before the House. The second point we propose to deal with in the Bill which we are now preparing. We shall submit the Bill to the House as soon as possible.

Mr. Garro Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that the producer's scheme will not be presented as a whole to take or to leave, but that it will be susceptible of such Amendments as commend themselves to the House as a whole?

Mr. Morrison: The producer's scheme will follow, as I am at present advised, the same method of presentation to the House as was embodied in the Agricultural Marketing Act.

Mr. Garro Jones: May we have an assurance that we shall not find ourselves offered a scheme to take or to leave in its original form, but that the Minister will be empowered to accept any Amendments which commend themselves to the House?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Member had better wait until the Bill comes forward. I will bear all these points in mind. There will have to be a great deal of consultation before the Bill reaches its final form.

Mr. T. Williams: In preparing the Measure, will the hon. Gentleman endeavour to do as my hon. Friend suggests and produce a scheme that is susceptible of Amendment, especially since apparently some independent Commission is going to help to prepare it?

Mr. Morrison: I will bear all these considerations in mind, but I would rather not give an assurance at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

FACILITIES, BRENTWOOD.

Captain Macnamara: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of


the shortage of accommodation in the post office at Brentwood, Essex; whether any plans have been drawn up for its extension; and, if so, when work is likely to start?

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Sir Walter Womersley): The deficiencies in the accommodation at the Brentwood post office are fully appreciated. Plans providing for a new post office on the site of the present building and adjoining property have been settled, and it is expected that building work will commence in the autumn.

TELEPHONE SERVICE.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the telephone kiosk promised to Livingston Station village, West Lothian, on 15th December last, has not yet been set up; what is the cause of the delay; and when will the erection of the kiosk be carried through?

Sir W. Womersley: A site has been selected and when this has been approved by the county council, the kiosk will be provided as soon as possible. As regards the question of delay, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question of 15th December last.

Mr. Mathers: May I ask when application was made to the county council for authority to erect this kiosk?

Sir W. Womersley: As soon as our plans were prepared, we applied to the county council for their permission, but I think my hon. Friend should be well satisfied now that he is going to get his kiosk.

Mr. Mathers: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this delay reflects unfavourably on both the Post Office and the county council?

Sir W. Womersley: I do not agree with my hon. Friend.

Sir John Mellor: asked the Postmaster-General what steps he has taken or proposes to take to accelerate the installation of telephones in those districts of the county of Warwickshire which adjoin the city of Birmingham?

Sir W. Womersley: The difficulty to which the hon. Member refers has been

experienced at eight exchanges in the area. At half of these exchanges the public demand for service, which has followed the recent tariff concessions, has outrun the capacity of the exchange equipment. In the remaining areas there is shortage of external plant. I have the matter very carefully under review, and I will do my utmost to minimise the inconvenience caused by the delay in obtaining the necessary plant.

Sir J. Mellor: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, is he aware that in my constituency there are a number of subscribers who have been waiting well over six months for service, and that in many cases their names have been in the Telephone Directory since last October, and they are still without service?

Sir W. Womersley: This is one of the penalties of success. The concessions made have been so popular that we have had an overwhelming number of new orders. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are doing our level best for all concerned.

Mr. Bellenger: Is not this state of affairs one of the penalties of the Government's rearmament programme?

Sir W. Womersley: The answer is decidedly no.

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.

Mr. Viant: asked the Postmaster-General how many of the 1,051 rejected applicants for employment with the Post Office Engineering Department were accorded a personal interview?

Sir W. Womersley: Forty-four of these applicants were accorded a personal interview. The remaining applications received careful consideration but as they contained no evidence of suitability for employment in the engineering department no useful purpose would have been served by calling these applicants up for personal interview.

MONEY ORDER DEPARTMENT (EMPLOYES, SICK LEAVE).

Mr. Viant: asked the Postmaster-General the number of employés in the Money Order Department who were absent through illness, and the average duration of such illness, for the years


1934, 1935, and 1936, and the number of employés employed for each of the aforementioned years?

Sir W. Womersley: As the information asked for contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Thorne: Will the information give the number of employés who have received six months' sick pay and those who have received half pay?

Sir W. Womersley: The information will show how many have been absent and the number of days of sick absence, which is what the hon. Member who put the question asked.


Following is the information:


Year

Number of employes.
Number who were absent at any time during the year on sick leave.
Average sick absence per person employed (in days).


1934
…
2,926
2,186
10·2


1935
…
2,768
2,129
11·1


1936
…
2,734
2,155
11·3

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT.

Mr. Rostron Duckworth: asked the Postmaster-General what telephone installation equipment has been ordered abroad in the last 12 months, and whether he can state its nature and its value?

Sir W. Womersley: During the last 12 months telephone equipment of foreign manufacture was ordered to the net value of £1,131. This was for the extension of certain old exchanges which were introduced experimentally when the automatic system was in its infancy. They are likely to be replaced by exchanges of standard type at no distant date. The purchase of foreign manufactured goods for 1936 represents less than one-tenth of 1 per cent. of the total purchases of exchange equipment by the Post Office.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION.

NEW STATIONS.

Mr. Day: asked the Postmaster-General when it is proposed to open the new broadcasting stations at Stagshaw, Newcastle-on-Tyne; and whether he has received any information as to when the new broadcasting stations at South Devon

and in the neighbourhood of the Bristol Channel will be commenced?

Sir W. Womersley: I am informed by the British Broadcasting Corporation that the new station at Stagshaw, near Newcastle-on-Tyne, will be opened in the autumn. Negotiations for the purchase of a site in South Devon are approaching completion. Tests of several possible sites for the proposed relay station in the neighbourhood of the Bristol Channel are proceeding.

Mr. Day: Can the hon. Gentleman give us any idea when this station will be begun?

Sir W. Womersley: I think I have given my hon. Friend all the information which is available.

Miss Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware that it takes the north a long time to see day?

TELEVISION (RADIUS).

Mr. Rostron Duckworth: asked the Postmaster-General whether recent television experiments have revealed a wider radius of reception; whether he can state the maximum radius now found to be possible; and how this compares with similar experiments in other countries?

Sir W. Womersley: I am informed by the British Broadcasting Corporation that the maximum range of the London television station varies with direction; but experience so far suggests that the average range for good reception is of the order mentioned in the Television Committee's report, namely, about 25 miles. Owing to differences in conditions it is difficult to make precise comparisons; but in general the results obtained in other countries are understood to be somewhat similar to those obtained here.

BROADCASTS.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: asked the Postmaster-General when he last exercised his powers under Sub-section (3) of Clause 4 of the Licence and Agreement between His Majesty's Postmaster-General and the British Broadcasting Corporation?

Sir W. Womersley: The sub-Clause in question empowers the Postmaster-General to issue a "Notice" requiring the Corporation to refrain from sending any specified broadcast matter. It may be drawn in general terms or may be related to a particular subject. A


"Notice" of the former type has been issued desiring the Corporation to abstain from broadcasting any expression of its own opinion in regard to matters of public policy, etc. No "Notice" of the latter type has been issued.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Prevention being better than cure, will the Postmaster-General now exercise his powers under this Clause and prevent the broadcasting of any subject-matter which is subversive to the British Constitution and British interests?

Sir W. Womersley: My right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General has at all times exercised the powers conferred upon him by this House and cannot go beyond those powers.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that under this Clause the Postmaster-General had power to do what I asked.

Sir A. Knox: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will ask the British Broadcasting Corporation to supply to the House of Commons Library verbatim copies of all broadcasts of a political or controversial nature?

Sir W. Womersley: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave on 17th February to my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons).

Mr. Thurtle: Cannot the hon. Gentleman do something to soothe the jagged nerves of his supporters?

Sir A. Knox: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will obtain from the British Broadcasting Corporation a list of the members of the Central Council for School Broadcasting appointed by the Corporation under paragraph 9 of the Charter of the British Broadcasting Corporation?

Sir W. Womersley: As requested by my hon. and gallant Friend, I have obtained from the British Broadcasting Corporation a list of the members of the Central Council for School Broadcasting. As this list contains over 50 names, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is it not on account of the fact that there are 50 names

that so much matter gets through which it were better should not get through?

Sir W. Womersley: I was asked whether I would supply these names.

Following is the list:

Central Council for School Broadcasting.

Chairman: W. W. Vaughan, M.V.O., D.Litt.

Vice-Chairman: Sir Henry Richards, C.B.

Representative Members.

Board of Education (3): Miss D. M. Hammonds, H.M.I.; G. T. Hankin, H.M.I.; W. P. Wheldon, LL.B., D.S.O.

Scottish Education Department: J. W. Peck, C.B., F.R.S.E.

Ministry of Education for Northern Ireland: A. N. Bonaparte Wyse, C.B.E.

Association of Education Committees: Percival Sharp, LL.D., B.Sc.

Association of Directors and Secretaries for Education (2): A. L. Binns, M.C., B.Sc.; F. Herbert Toyne.

County Councils Association: F. Salter Davies, C.B.E.

Association of Municipal Corporations: F. P. Armitage, C.B.E.

London County Council: John Brown, M.B.E., M.C.

Association of Directors of Education in Scotland: J. Coutts Morrison.

Association of Councils of Counties and Cities in Scotland: Sir Charles Cleland, K.B.E., M.V.O., D.L., LL.D., F.E.I.S.

Association of County Councils in Scotland. (Representatives not yet appointed.)

Federation of Education Committees (Wales and Monmouth): T. J. Rees.

National Union of Teachers (4): H. H. Cartwright; W. W. Hill, B.Sc.; W. Lloyd Pierce; Mrs. E. V. Parker.

Joint Committee of the Four Secondary Associations (3): Incorporated Association of Headmasters, Headmistresses, Assistant Masters, Assistant Mistresses: A. Hay; H. Hugh Jones; Miss D. W. Wright.

Joint Committee of the Three Technical and Art Associations: Association of Teachers in Technical Institutes, Associations of Principals in Technical Institutes, National Society of Art Masters: J. Wickham Murray.

Independent Schools Association: S. Maxwell, LL.B.

Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools: Bernard Rendall.

Educational Institute of Scotland: Harry Blackwood, F.E.I.S.

Training College Association: Miss H. J. Hartle.

Council of Principals of Training Colleges. (Representative not yet appointed.)

Scottish Council for School Broadcasting: Chairman, Sir Charles Cleland, K.B.E., M.V.O., LL.D. Chairman of Scottish Executive, G. A. Burnett, B.Sc.

Nominated Members.

W. W. Vaughan, M.V.O., D.Litt.

Sir Henry Richards, C.B.

R. N. Armfelt.
C. W. Baty.
O. F. Brown, B.Sc.
Cyril Burt, D.Sc.
Professor F. Clarke.
Professor W. J. Gruffydd.
W. A. F. Hepburn, M.C.
W. H. Perkins, M.Sc.
Frank Roscoe.
Dr. Geoffrey Shaw, H.M.I.
Miss H. V. Stuart.
P. Wilson.
H. A. S. Wortley.

Secretary: A. C. Cameron, M.C.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

CONSTITUTION.

The following question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS:

39. To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is prepared to have a further inquiry into the constitutional relationship of Palestine to the United Kingdom, having regard to the fact that the Colonial Office, by extending to Palestine treaties entered into by the United Kingdom and foreign countries, recognise Palestine as part of the British Empire, while the Treasury, by declining to extend to Palestine the Imperial preference provisions of the Finance Act, 1919, treat Palestine fiscally as a foreign country?

Mr. H. G. Williams: In putting this question may I raise a point of Order? This question, which concerns two Departments of State, was addressed to the Prime Minister, and I observe that on the

Order Paper it is addressed to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The transfer was made without my knowledge.

Mr. Speaker: The question was transferred to the Department which has the information.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by such an inquiry as my hon. Friend suggests. Commercial treaties between the United Kingdom and foreign countries are in appropriate cases applied to Palestine, with the concurrence of the Palestine Government, in virtue of the fact that under the Mandate His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are entrusted with the control of the foreign relations of that Territory. This circumstance does not, however, affect the juridical difficulties which, as has been explained on previous occasions, stand in the way of the extension to Palestine of the benefits of Imperial preference.

SITUATION.

Sir Ronald Ross: (for Lieut.-Colonel Sir William Allen) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that outrages have broken out again and are of daily occurrence in Palestine; and whether, as this is partly due to the disarming of the police in certain districts, he will say what steps are being taken to prevent the recurrence of crime?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The situation in Palestine remains generally as described in my reply to a question by the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) on 19th January, of which I will send my hon. and gallant Friend a copy. On the information at my disposal I see no grounds whatever for the suggestion that any recurrence of crime in Palestine is due to the disarming of the police in certain limited areas.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Are members of the civil population allowed to carry arms?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Only those specifically authorised to do so by the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE (NORTH COATES FITTIES).

Mr. Liddall: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many


Royal Air Force personnel have been at North Coates Fitties since 1st December, 1936; on how many days have they been able to fly; and whether he is satisfied that this is a suitable station for winter training?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): I have been asked to reply. The average number of men under training at North Coates Fitties during the period mentioned was 58, and flying was practicable on 25 days, excluding the Christmas leave period and Sundays. The limited amount of flying was due to the abnormal weather conditions experienced in the country generally during this period, and my right hon. Friend is advised that North Coates Fitties is considered as suitable for winter training as other stations in this country.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIRCRAFT FACTORY (SPEKE).

Mr. Pilkington: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the people ejected from the ground to be used for the new aircraft factory at Speke are being paid compensation and are being assisted in finding new homes or farms?

Sir V. Warrender: The Corporation of Liverpool have undertaken to give the Air Ministry vacant possession of this site and my hon. Friend's question relates, therefore, to a matter between the corporation and their tenants. My right hon. Friend is given to understand that the corporation have the matter in hand.

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHING INDUSTRY (DISPUTE, NORTH SHIELDS).

Mr. West Russell: asked the Minister of Labour what is the present position regarding the dispute in the fishing industry at North Shields; how many men are affected; and whether he proposes to take any action towards a settlement?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Lieut.-Colonel Muir-head): It is understood that work has been resumed, and that a ballot is being taken by the union on the question of accepting the counter proposals of the owners or referring the matter to arbitration.

Mr. Russell: Is the Minister aware that on both sides of this dispute there is a strong feeling that unless early legislative action is taken by the Government not only will any settlement be purely temporary but the industry, which is an old native industry, will be lost to that Special Area; and will he consult with the Minister of Agriculture as to the action which has been promised and which is eagerly awaited as the one hope in a position which is regarded as almost desperate?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I will make a note of what my hon. Friend has said.

Oral Answers to Questions — FLEET AIR-ARM.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to say whether the future of the Fleet air-arm is being considered by the Government or by some other body; when the matter last came before the body considering it; and when the decision of the Government may be expected?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Baldwin): I have nothing to add to the previous replies which I have given to the hon. and gallant Member in reply to questions on this subject.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, raise this matter at the earliest possible moment on the Adjournment of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL DEFENCE.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty at Bradford on 5th February represents the policy of His Majesty's Government in relation to Imperial Defence and the co-operation of the Dominions?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend made no new statement of policy. The subject of his speech was the complete freedom of the Member States of the British Commonwealth of Nations to decide for themselves their policies of defence. Whilst stating that the chief burden of defence expenditure falls on Great Britain, my right hon. Friend once again declared that


it would be a grave mistake if we tried to impose some rigid plan upon the other members of the Empire.
Similarly, as to economic questions, he made it clear that any agreements that had been or might be reached, resulted in the British Commonwealth from a common outlook and a spontaneous desire for co-operation.

Mr. Henderson: Is the Prime Minister aware that, in the course of the same speech, the First Lord of the Admiralty stated that local Dominion schemes were both extravagant and inefficient, and the "Times" of 12th February, published a report from its correspondent in Ottawa to the effect that the Canadian Government were gravely embarrassed by his statement; and can he not do something to prevent these repeated Ministerial indiscretions?

The Prime Minister: The latter part of the hon. Gentleman's statement is incorrect, because I have been in communication with the Canadian Government and what did happen was that what are called abbreviated reports—but what some people might call garbled reports—were sent across to Canada. They were used, by those whom one might expect to use them, as sticks with which to beat the Canadian Government. We have had no complaint from the Canadian Government.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the fact that a progressive Government is in power in Canada, may we take it that Conservatives were using those sticks?

Mr. Henderson: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the authority for my statement was the "Times," which is a supporter of the Government?

The Prime Minister: I do not question the authority of the hon. Member. I have read the speech in the first person and I have made myself acquainted with it. I am very grateful for the opportunity which the House gives me of reading all these speeches very carefully.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMAMENTS MANUFACTURE.

Sir Percy Harris: asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have any intention to implement any part of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Private Manufacture of

Armaments; and, if so whether he will print a White Paper stating what their proposals are?

The Prime Minister: I regret that I am not yet in a position to add to the answer I gave last week on this subject.

Sir P. Harris: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is rather unfair to the distinguished ladies and gentlemen, who gave two years of their time to the Royal Commission, that no notice should be taken of their recommendations for so long a time?

The Prime Minister: I should have thought that the longer time which was given would show that greater appreciation was given to the recommendations.

Mr. Hardie: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now give the House any definite assurance that machinery has been set up to prevent abnormal profiteering in the manufacture of armaments; and, if so, will these be retrospective, dating back to when the first £300,000,000 was put into operation?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave on 28th January to the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Day), of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. Hardie: Have the Government nothing more to add now to that answer, or are they still going to admit that they are just going along on the same lines as in 1914–18, allowing a general swindle to get right through, especially members of their own party?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I do not agree with what the hon. Gentleman says on that point.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (ARMAMENTS).

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government are prepared to invite the German Government to stop their present policy of re-arming, and to withdraw recognition from Germany unless Herr Hitler's Government is prepared to meet this demand?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINESE LIQUID EGGS.

Sir G. Fox: asked the Lord President of the Council what research has been carried out to ascertain whether Chinese liquid eggs imported into this country are hygienic foodstuffs; and, if not, whether he can arrange for further investigation to take place?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The answer to the first part of the question, in so far as the Medical Research Council are concerned, is in the negative. As regards the second part, I am informed that the matter is not of a kind which would come within the Council's sphere, except on representations from the appropriate administrative Department that there was need for special research work going beyond the scope of ordinary methods of examination. In this connection, I am informed by the Minister of Health that samples of frozen Chinese eggs have been examined in the laboratory of his Department and that no evidence was found of the presence of any pathogenic organisms.

Sir G. Fox: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that nearly 1000,000,000 of these eggs came into British ports last year from China?

Mr. Lambert: Has the right hon. Gentleman tried a diet of Chinese eggs?

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL.

Mr. Ede: asked the Minister of Health to which administrative counties of England and Wales will Section 3 (1) of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Bill apply in the event of the Bill becoming law in its present form?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. R. S. Hudson): It is anticipated that the administrative counties of Middlesex and Surrey will be the only counties affected by the provisions of Clause 3 (1) of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Bill.

Mr. Ede: asked the Minister Of Health whether he will state, in respect of each of the administrative counties affected by Section 3 (1) of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Bill, the amount that the county would have

to contribute to the deficiency under the present law and the amount the county will have to contribute if the Bill is enacted in its present form?

Mr. Hudson: Under the Local Government Act, 1929, no contribution was payable by a county council when the county apportionment was less than the amount required to be set aside out of it for payment to the councils of county districts; the whole of the deficiency was made good by the Exchequer. Under the proposals contained in the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Bill it is estimated that the contributions to be made under Clause 3 (1) by the Middlesex County Council will be limited to the product of a penny rate (approximately £71,000) and the contribution by the Surrey County Council will be £36,000 in each year of the next grant period commencing on 1st April next.

Mr. Ede: asked the Minister of Health whether he will state, in respect of each of the counties affected by Section 3 (1) of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Bill, the amount the Exchequer would have had to contribute to the deficiency under the existing law and the amount the Exchequer will have to contribute if the Bill is enacted in its present form?

Mr. Hudson: It is estimated that under the present law the contributions to be made by the Exchequer in each year of the grant period commencing on 1st April next in cases where the county apportionment is less than the amount required to be set aside for payment to the councils of county districts would be £131,000 (£107,000 in the case of Middlesex and £24,000 in the case of Surrey). Under the proposals contained in the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Bill it is estimated that the contributions to be made by the Exchequer under Clause 3 (1) will be £159,000 (£123,000 in the case of Middlesex and £36,000 in the case of Surrey).

Oral Answers to Questions — STEEL AND SCRAP IRON.

Mr. Thorne: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give this House any information in connection with the steel and scrap iron agreement?

Captain Crookshank: My right hon. Friend understands that, as is reported


in the Press, the iron and steel industry has made arrangements with the National Federation of Scrap Iron and Steel Merchants for the better organisation of supplies of scrap. The object of these arrangements is, I understand, to improve the collection and distribution of supplies.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Can the Minister state what percentage of increase in the prices is arrived at in this agreement?

Mr. Banfield: Is the Minister aware that smaller employers in this industry are being squeezed out because they cannot get materials?

Miss Wilkinson: Are we to understand from the answer which the Minister has given that the only information which the Board of Trade has on this vital matter of the raw materials of steel is from casual notices in the Press, and are they not taking any share whatever in the organisation of this vital matter?

Captain Crookshank: The hon. Lady must not understand that; it was only a reference that I made.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY (APPRENTICES).

Sir Robert Young: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the number of engine-room artificers and other apprentices, specifying which, who, since the inception of the scheme of promotion to cadet (E) and midshipman (E), have been promoted each year; and whether, in view of the large increase in the number of cadet-entry engineer-officers, he will remove the limit of two only per year for apprentices and arrange for a larger number of these well-fitted men to become officers?

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir Samuel Hoare): The numbers of apprentices promoted to midshipman (E) are as follow:

Two in each of the years 1924, 1925 and 1928;
One in each of the years 1926, 1927, 1929, 1931, 1933 and 1934;
None in the years 1930 and 1932.
In 1935, one apprentice was promoted to cadet (E), and in 1936, two.
It would not be possible, without examination of the individual records, to ascertain whether these midshipmen and

cadets, before selection, were being trained as engine-room, electrical or ordnance artificers. The hon. Member will appreciate that these numbers relate to a period when the entries to the mechanical training establishment were smaller than they are now. I may add that I am considering whether an increase can be made in the number of cadets (E) taken from this source, provided that suitable candidates are forthcoming.

Sir R. Young: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the limit of two apprentices per year is sufficient encouragement to these young men to take a keen interest in their profession?

Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir. I should like to see more, and the question whether it is possible to increase the number is under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

SENIOR SCHOOLS (VISITS).

Mr. Simpson: asked the President of the Board of Education whether any instructions have been issued limiting the facilities for, educational visits in the case of senior schools; have the authorities been consulted in the matter; and does the board discriminate in this connection in favour of secondary schools?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Shakespeare): No instructions have been issued limiting the facilities for educational visits in the case of senior schools, and the second part of the question does not, therefore, arise. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

TRANSPORT FACILITIES.

Mr. Simpson: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware of the hardship to parents where children have to pay omnibus fares for children's school attendance, a cost much higher than comparable transport by tramcar; and whether he will endeavour to secure equality of treatment by arrangement with the transport authorities or otherwise?

Mr. Shakespeare: If the hon. Member has any particular case of hardship in mind, and will let me know the facts, I shall be glad to see whether anything can be done.

SCHOOL CHILDREN (MILK).

Mr. Rostron Duckworth: asked the President of the Board of Education the nature of the experiments now being made to render more palatable the consumption of fresh milk by children who do not care for it in its raw state?

Mr. Shakespeare: So far as I am aware no experiments of this kind are now being made, but we are considering the whole question in conjunction with the Ministry of Agriculture, the Milk Marketing Board and the National Milk Publicity Council. The practical difficulties are, however, substantial, and an experiment conducted last year in Ayrshire by the Hannah Dairy Research Institute in co-operation with the Scottish Milk Marketing Board produced rather disappointing results.

Mr. Duckworth: Can I have my hon. Friend's assurance, on behalf of the children referred to in this question, that the Department will continue to experiment and to endeavour to allay the opposition on the part of the Milk Marketing Board to this scheme?

Mr. Shakespeare: That, clearly, is a matter for further consideration by ourselves and the other authorities.

Lieut.-Colonel Moore: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that by going to any of the local milk bars it is possible to find out 253 ways of utilising milk to make it more palatable?

Mr. Shakespeare: I dare say that is right.

WOOLWICH ARSENAL (ACCIDENT).

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now give the House any information in connection with the fatal accident to a window cleaner at Woolwich Arsenal?

Sir V. Warrender: The matter is still under consideration. I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as investigations are completed.

AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Mr. Parker: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he will make an investigation into the observations of the Cambridge scientists as the result of their

examination of recommendations put forward by the Air Raids Precautions Department of the Home Office;
(2) whether he will cause to be published the full scientific evidence on which the proposals for the gasproofing of rooms in private houses have been based?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I presume the hon. Member refers to the Cambridge Scientists' Anti-War Group, but I would point out that this group must not be confused with the general body of Cambridge scientists, and indeed His Majesty's Government are advised in regard to these matters by the most distinguished scientific experts, not only from Cambridge, but from Oxford and other universities. The observations of the Cambridge Scientists' Anti-War Group have been carefully investigated, with the result that both the experiments themselves and the deductions made from them have been proved to be open to grave criticism. It would not be in the public interest to disclose details of the experiments upon which the Government's plans are based, but, as I said in answer to a previous question, these experiments were conducted with actual war gases liberated under practical conditions, and the measures proposed would be effective in affording a very great measure of protection.

Mr. A. Henderson: Is not the difficulty with scientists the same as with lawyers—that they never agree?

Mr. Sandys: Is my hon. Friend aware that this so-called anti-war movement is a subsidiary of the Communist party, and that the Executive of the Labour party have declared it to be subversive and unworthy of recognition?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir, I believe that to be true.

NIGHT BAKING (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Home Secretary if he will give the terms of reference and names of the Departmental Committee on night baking; and when the committee will begin to take evidence?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir; the terms of reference of the Committee are:


To inquire into the effects likely to ensue, to those engaged in the bread baking and flour confectionery industry, and to the public, in the event of the abolition by legislation of the practice of night baking now prevalent in the industry; and to consider and report whether or not such legislation would be desirable.

The members are:
The Right Hon. Lord Alness, K.C. (Chairman).
Mr. John Adamson, Chartered Accountant, of Messrs. McClelland, Ker &amp; Co.
Mr. A. W. Garrett, Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories.
The Hon. Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield (Mr. Marshall).
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall).
The Committee held a preliminary meeting last week, and is taking evidence from the Factory Department to-day. I understand that arrangements are in train for the associations of employers and workers chiefly concerned to give evidence as soon as practicable. Any other bodies of persons desirous of giving evidence should communicate with the Secretary at the Home Office as soon as possible.

Mr. Banfield: Would the hon. Gentleman be prepared to take evidence from the Irish Free State as to the effect of the abolition of night baking, recently passed by the Irish Free State Parliament, on the public, the employers, and the workers concerned?

Mr. Lloyd: That is a matter for the Committee itself.

Oral Answers to Questions — CATERING TRADE (HOURS OF WORK).

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the long hours worked by club and hotel employés; and whether he will introduce legislation to deal with this matter?

Mr. Lloyd: I have consulted my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Labour, and understand that no general information on this subject is available beyond that contained in the report of an inquiry into remuneration and hours of employment in the catering trade which was published in 193o. I would point out, however, that the hours of work of certain classes

of young persons employed in hotels are already limited under the Shops Act, 1934, and that the hours of other juvenile attendants in these establishments have recently been the subject of inquiry by the Departmental Committee on Hours of Employment of Young Persons in Certain Unregulated Occupations, whose report is to be published shortly. As regards the second part of the question, I am not aware that any general legislation on this question is at present in contemplation; but so far as the case of young persons is concerned consideration will, of course, be given to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Is it not clear, from my hon. Friend's answer, that the bulk of these people are not protected by legislation or by trade unions?

Mr. Davidson: Could not this problem be easily cleared up if the hon. Gentleman would ask Members of his own party behind him to do some of their own work?

Mr. Lloyd: We must await the report of the Departmental Committee.

Mr. Lawson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the only protection that these people can really have is a trade board; and will the Government press the people concerned accordingly?

Mr. Lloyd: I am afraid that that is another point.

Mr. Garro Jones: In view of the hon. Gentleman's admission that he has not the amount of information that he would desire for dealing with this matter, and in view of the magnitude of the industry, will he not set up a Departmental Committee to inquire into the hours worked by adults in this trade as well as by young persons?

Oral Answers to Questions — HISTORY OF PARLIAMENT.

Major Hills: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the new History of Parliament costs £2 a volume, less a discount on buying more volumes than one, and that such a price, even with discount, makes it too expensive for most Members of Parliament, and is also so high that the circulating libraries will not stock it; and, in view of the interest of its publication to Members, will he arrange for them to be able to buy it at a price substantially lower?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: It was only on the understanding that no net charge should fall upon public funds that my right hon. Friend consented to the publication and sale of these volumes by the Stationery Office, and the selling price was fixed at the lowest rate consistent with this condition. It is, of course, open to the responsible Committee to arrange for the sale of volumes to Members of Parliament at a special discount if they are prepared to make good the difference at the cost of the Compilation Fund; but I cannot see my way to make the proposed concession at the expense of the general taxpayer.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that a great many private people have subscribed to this work, and that those who have subscribed should not have to pay the full price for their volumes, as they have already contributed substantially for the work?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: These subscriptions would go to the compilation fund generally.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

HYDE PARK (VICTORIA GATE).

Sir William Davison: asked the Minister of Transport whether he can now inform the House when a commencement will be made with the work in connection with the proposed new roundabout and other matters for improving traffic conditions at Victoria Gate, Hyde Park?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Captain Austin Hudson): No, Sir.

Sir W. Davison: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say when he expects to be in a position to make a statement?

Captain Hudson: We are doing our very best to expedite the matter, and I hope that very shortly we shall be in a position to make a statement.

NATIONALISATION.

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Transport when the Government propose

to introduce legislation for the purpose of nationalising the principal means of transport in Great Britain?

Captain Hudson: There is no such intention.

Mr. Day: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether it is the intention of the Government to give effect to the third report of the Royal Commission on Transport?

Captain Hudson: The hon. Gentleman had better put that question on the Paper.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Right hon. William Wedgwood Benn, for the Borough of Manchester (Gorton Division).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister what business he proposes to take to-night in the event of his Motion being carried?

The Prime Minister: We shall get as far as we can with the Committee stage of the Supplementary Estimates on the Paper, we intend to take the Report of Ways and Means so that the Defence Loan Bill may be brought in, printed and circulated, and I do not think there will be any objection to the Committee stage of the Money Resolution of the Harbours, Piers and Ferries (Scotland) [Remission of Debt].

Mr. Attlee: Is it proposed that the House should sit very late?

The Prime Minister: I do not think so. We want to make as much progress as possible. The Supplementary Estimates must be passed, because the financial year comes to an end very shortly.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 224; Noes, 82.

Division No. 85.]
AYES.
[3.47 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley


Adams, S. V, T. (Leeds, W.)
Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Barrie, Sir C. C.


Albery, Sir Irving
Assheton, R.
Baxter, A. Beverley




Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Grimston, R. V.
Pilkington, R.


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Guy, J. C. M.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Blair, Sir R.
Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Blaker, Sir R.
Hannah, I. C.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Bossom, A. C.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Ramsbotham, H.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Hartington, Marquess of
Rankin, Sir R.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Brass, Sir W.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Rayner, Major R. H.


Brooklebank, C. E. R.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Remer, J, R.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Bull, B. B.
Holmes, J. S.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Burton, Col. H. W.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J,
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Butler, R. A.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ropner, Colonel L.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Cary, R. A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Rothschild, J. A. de


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. W.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Hulbert, N. J.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hunter, T.
Salman, Sir I.


Channon, H.
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Jackson, Sir H.
Sandys, E. D.


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Savery, Sir Servington


Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)
Keeling, E. H.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Selley, H. R.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Shakespeare, G. H.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Leckie, J. A.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
 Lewis, O.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Liddall, W. S.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Cranborne, Viscount
Lindsay, K. M.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Crossley, A. C.
Lloyd, G. W.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Culverwell, C. T.
Looker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Lumley, Capt. L. r.
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Davison, Sir W. H.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Storey, S.


De la Bère, R.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Denville, Alfred
MacDonald. Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
MacDonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Doland, G. F.
McKie, J. H.
Sutcliffe, H.


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
 Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Tate, Mavis C.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Macquisten, F. A.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Dugdale, Major T. L.
 Maitland, A.
Tufnell, Lleut.-Commander R. L.


Duggan, H. J.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Turton, R. H.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon H. D. R.
Wakefield, W. W.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Markham, S. F.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Ellis, Sir G.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Warrender, Sir V.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wayland, Sir W. A


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R
Wells, S. R.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
White, H. Graham


Everard, W. L.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Findlay, Sir E.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Fox, Sir G. w. G.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Munro, P.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Furness, S. N.
Neven-Spenee, Major B. H. H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Ganzoni, Sir J.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.
Wise, A. R.


Gluckstein, L. H.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Goldie, N. B.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Patrick, C. M.



Granville, E. L.
Peake, O.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Sir George Penny and Lieut.-


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Petherick, M.
Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Bellenger, F. J.
Day, H.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Dobbie, W.


Adamson, W. M.
Benson, G.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)


Ammon, C. G.
Brooke, W.
Ede, J. C.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Chater, D.
Frankel, D.


Banfield, J. W.
Cluse, W. S.
Gallacher, W.


Barnes, A. J.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Gardner, B. W.


Batey, J.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Garro Jones, G. M.




Green, W. H. (Deptford)
McGhee, H. G.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees-(K'ly)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Marshall, F.
Sorensen, R. W.


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Maxten, J.
Stephen, C.


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Messer, F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Groves, T. E.
Montague, F.
Thorne, W.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Paling, W.
Thurtle, E.


Hardie, G. D.
Parker, J.
Tinker, J. J.


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Viant, S. P.


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Potts, J.
Walker, J.


Hopkin, D.
Ritson, J.
Watkins, F. C.


Jagger, J.
Rowson, G.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Kelly, W. T.
Salter, Dr. A.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Sanders, W. S.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Lawson, J. J.
Sexton, T. M.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Leonard, W.
Shinwell, E.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Leslie, J. R.
Short, A.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Logan, D. G.
Simpson, F. B.



Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


McEntee, V. La T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Charleton.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (added in respect of the Annual Holiday Bill): Mr. Louis Smith; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Robert Gower.

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Mr. Michael Beaumont and Captain Bullock; and had appointed in substitution: Viscountess Astor and Mr. Denman.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1937.

Estimates presented,—for the Navy for the financial year 1937 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

AIR ESTIMATES, 1937.

Estimates presented,—for the financial year 1937 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1936.

CLASS I.

CORONATION OF HIS MAJESTY.

Motion made, Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £152,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for Expenses connected with His Coronation.

3.57 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): I am presenting the Supplementary Estimate relating to the expenditure to be incurred up to 31st March in connection with the Coronation of His Majesty. Hon. Members who have the Estimate in their hands will see that there are three items. The first relates to the Office of Works, the second to the Earl Marshall's Office, and the third to Miscellaneous matters. The second and third items are small and are self-explanatory, but the first item requires a little explanation, and there may be some points which will be of interest to the Committee. The main expenditure for which the present Estimate provides is incurred by the Office of Works—

Mr. Maxton: Why is not the Lord President of the Council doing this?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: This is a matter in which the Treasury are primarily interested, and I am putting the case for the Estimate from the Treasury point of view. The main expenditure is incurred by the Office of Works, and the largest item on which expenditure will be incurred by the Office of Works during the current financial year is the erection and decoration of stands. The sum of £70,300 is expected to be spent on this item by 31st March, and the total cost is estimated at approximately £140,000. If hon. Members will look at the Estimate they will see that there is a note at the bottom which says that a further Estimate will be presented for expenses to be

incurred after 31st March, 1937, and the receipts for the sale of seats will be appropriated in aid of that Vote. They are not taken into account on this Vote.
It was originally proposed that the sales of seats should cover the expenditure, and be appropriated in aid of the Vote for 1937, but it was decided, as has already been announced, that the price of seats should be fixed at an amount representing one-half of the net cost. Therefore, the appropriation will be less than was originally intended. The reason for fixing the sale of seats at that moderate price was to bring them within reach of a wider range of people. It may be of interest to the Committee to know that the number of seats to be provided will be four times as many as on the occasion of the Jubilee. There are, of course, very large incidental expenses in connection with the preparation of stands to accommodate so many.
Turning to another large item of works expenditure, there are the preparation of seats in Westminster Abbey and the building of a temporary annexe at the West door of the Abbey. Approximately £55,000, it is expected, will be spent on these services in the current financial year. I will give one or two points in connection with the work at the Abbey. The improvement in the technique of erection of stands which has taken place since the last Coronation function in 1911 has made it possible to accommodate a larger number of persons in the Abbey. The increase in the number is 700. That is due to the improved technique and the use of steel. Then cloak-room and retiring accommodation has to be provided, and in the figure I have mentioned for the Abbey that is included. The Committee will note, therefore, that the two main items which make up this figure of £150,000 under the heading Office of Works are the erection of seats in the Abbey and the erection of stands on the route.
The question of the allocation of the seats in the stands has been under consideration, and the Coronation Committee of the Privy Council are at work at the present time on a scheme for giving as wide a representation to as many phases of our national life as possible. The Committee will agree that unless an effort of this sort were made for a wide allocation of seats it would not be possible for the Coronation to be a really representative


gathering. Efforts are, therefore, being made to allocate the seats on the stands on as wide a basis as possible. Other important items are included in the Vote. There are the decorations. The decorations are expected to cost £20,050 in the current financial year. That is for decorations not only on the procession route, but on buildings which are the property of the Office of Works throughout the country. In the decorations at provincial centres efforts will be made to harmonise and fall into line with the schemes that are to be carried out by the localities. In this Vote there is therefore a sum of approximately £20,000 for decorations.
Flood-lighting is to be a new feature on this occasion. It is intended to floodlight certain important buildings in London, including Buckingham Palace, the Victoria Memorial, St. James's Palace, St. James's Park, the Clock Tower of the Houses of Parliament, the National Gallery, the Tower of London, Somerset House, Greenwich Hospital, the Round Tower at Windsor, Hampton Court Palace and Gardens, the Admiralty Arch, Westminster Abbey, the Horse Guards, the Houses of Parliament on the Terrace Front, St. George's Chapel, Windsor; Trafalgar Square and the Royal Mint.

Sir Percy Harris: How long are those illuminations to last? Will the floodlighting be continued for some days or only on the night of Coronation Day?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The present intention is to continue the floodlighting up to 17th May.

Sir P. Harris: When is it to begin?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: From the time of the general illumination beginning on Coronation Day, I assume. It will be in keeping with the general festivities. Another feature on this occasion is to be sound amplification. That is for the purpose of relaying the service in the Abbey to the public seated in the stands and the far larger number who will be standing in the roadways, in Hyde Park and elsewhere. For this a sum of money has to be allocated.

Mr. Batey: Wait a minute. You are going too fast. You have said nothing about the Estimate for floodlighting.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I have given the estimate for the two large items which account for the biggest part of the Estimate, that is to say the erection of stands and the preparation of seats in the Abbey. The other items of expenditure are relatively small. The two large ones account for about 70 per cent. of the total sum of £150,000. The cost of floodlighting I can give. It is estimated to cost £2,000 in the period up to 31st March. That is for the preparation. There will be a further £6,300 in the following financial year. I can say now, definitely, in answer to the question which was put to me earlier, that the intention is to floodlight from the 12th to 17th May.

Miss Wilkinson: Does the Estimate for broadcasting include also an estimate for televising.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I cannot answer that question at the moment but I do not think there will be provision for televising. The purpose of the broadcasting is not only to broadcast the ceremony throughout the country but to inform and control the crowds in London and to help the police as well.

Miss Wilkinson: Do I understand that it has been definitely decided not to televise?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: There will not be any television in the Abbey, at the Abbey service. That has been decided, I understand. Perhaps when I have finished my remarks the hon. Lady will put to me any questions she wishes to ask and I will do my best to answer. I must also refer to the fact that certain special work will be necessary to prepare the parks for the occasion, apart from the erection of the stands.

Mr. Batey: You have not given us the cost of the amplification broadcast?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: There are other details, and I shall be glad to supply them but I had hoped that the Committee on learning what were the major items in the Vote would be satisfied. The amplification expenses will fall into next year, that is after 31st March. There will be no expense of preparation before 31st March, and the amount to be spent next year is estimated at £1,800. There will also be a small expense of £300 in connection with the formation of a special telephone exchange to be established with a central


switchboard at St. James's Palace. That is for assistance in conducting the ceremonial and for general control. Appropriations-in-Aid will be considerable, but they will be set off against the Vote which will come up in the next financial year. The Appropriations will arise from the sale of seats in the stands and from the sale of certain seats and other furnishings in the Abbey.
It will be seen that the preparations are on a large scale, and it is appropriate that they should be, because we are anticipating that the number of visitors to London on this occasion will be far greater than anything that has been known on previous occasions of national rejoicing. The facilities for travel have improved and it is the anticipation of those who are making the arrangements that the numbers in London will be very large indeed. The fact that four times the number of stands are being erected than for the Jubilee, is proof of that expectation. It is the determination of those in charge of the work to make the provision as suitable and comfortable as possible. Lavatory accommodation, which is not an unimportant item, had to be considered also. These are the main items which fill up the first Estimate of work undertaken by the Office of Works. The other items, for the Earl Marshal's office and "Miscellaneous," are smaller items, amounting to £1,000 each.

Mr. Maxton: Anything for insurance?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: Not directly, that is to fall where applicable in the next financial year. The work is proceeding; hon. Members will have seen the stands that are being erected. In fact some hon. Members may have the feeling that we have begun work rather too early, but I assure them that it is better to begin early so as to ensure that the work can be completed satisfactorily. This is a time of some rush in the building trade, and there are many demands on builders for all sorts of purposes. The Government would have been unwise if they had not allowed the work to proceed early. If the erection of stands had been undertaken later it would have caused dislocation in the building and other trades.

4.13 p.m.

Mr. Lees-Smith: There is one item on which I would like to make a few remarks, because it is of the greatest public

interest. That is the charge of 15s. for the thousands of seats on the Government stands. As the Financial Secretary has said, these subjects were first of all discussed by the Coronation Committee. Perhaps I ought to explain that the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) and myself were members of that Committee. The proposal that a charge of 15s. each should be made for the seats was an agreed proposal by the Coronation Committee, and I see from this Estimate that the Government have accepted it. Perhaps I may explain why that sum was finally accepted by everyone. The Financial Secretary has stated the principle on which this great block of over 85,000 seats was provided. They are Government seats. It was decided that as this was a national occasion the seats should be so allocated as to ensure a national representation. As far as possible it was decided that the seats should be allocated to the great mass of representative organisations embodying the general life of the nation. Unless we did that, the other alternative was to allocate the seats as a kind of show, and we decided that the other was the better method.
The actual cost price of the seats is 30s., but it became quite clear that at that price those organisations representing the wage-earners and the poorer sections of the community would not be able to be represented, because they could not afford to pay the price of the seats. That argument affected not only co-operators and trade unionists but pensioners, fishermen, the lower grades of civil servants, and so on. It was agreed by those who spoke for these various bodies that a price between 10s. and 20s. would be sufficiently low to enable them to have adequate representation on the stands.
Some hon. Members may ask why the seats should not be allocated free. There are one or two reasons against that proposal. One is that a great many of the representatives of our national life on the seats will be those who are comfortably off. Moreover, they are to get the seats at much less than the market value. Similar seats outside the Government stand will cost a great deal more than 30s. It was agreed that it would not be reasonable to ask for another £160,000 or £70,000 when so many of the seats would be occupied by those not in need of any kind


of subsidy. Therefore, it was arranged to allocate the seats on a fifty-fifty basis, and that as the seats cost 30s. the Government should provide half the cost and the occupants should find the other half. After a good many discussions that was the final and unanimous recommendation of the Coronation Committee, and the Government have accepted it. In those circumstances I and my colleagues on the Committee take the responsibility of supporting the Government.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. Batey: I am sorry that we have had both parties dealing with this question, because there seems to be an implication that we on this side are tied up when representatives of our party have met the other side and discussed this matter, and that we on the back benches have lost our right of discussion. I make a protest against that. Members of this House ought to be at liberty to discuss this matter and to disagree with the policy outlined. I am sorry that we have had the last speech, because it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman has given us information which ought to have come from the other side. If the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was not able to give the information, then we ought to have had it from the Lord President of the Council, who, I suppose, was chairman of the Joint Committee. We ought to have had a full statement from the Government of what has been arranged. Some of us on these benches cannot agree to what is proposed. It has been agreed that there should be a charge of 15s. for the seats. Perhaps the Lord President of the Council will tell us how the seats are to be allocated. How many are to be allocated to ex-service men and nurses? How do the members of the Committee expect any workman to-day to be in a position to pay 15s. for a seat in order to view the procession?
Can we be assured that the Coronation will come off this time? Is there any likelihood of there being another hitch? Is there any danger that after all these preparations there will not be any Coronation? We had much talk of the Coronation for a long time when King Edward VIII was on the Throne, then we suddenly found that he had abdicated and so far as he was concerned there was no Coronation. We are to be asked

to spend up to 31st March, £152,000. During the month of April and the month of May up to the 12th I take it that there will be very considerable further expenditure and that the total will not be less than £500,000. If we are to be asked to spend so much money, we ought to be given a guarantee that the Coronation will take place. When the Coronation does take place, are the Government going to use it as they used the Silver Jubilee? They staged the Silver Jubilee, and then took advantage of it to go to the country and win the General Election. If we are to spend all this money we have a right to ask whether it is the intention of the Government to take advantage of the Coronation, just as they took advantage of the Silver Jubilee.
I rose mainly for the purpose of protesting against our being asked to spend £152,000 up to the end of March and a very large sum afterwards, as long as the House is inflicting the means test on the unemployed. It is shabby on the part of the Government to take money from the unemployed under the means test, to take the last 6d. they can possibly extract from the pockets of the unemployed, and then to prepare to spend so much money merely on a show. It would be in far better taste to abolish the means test before asking the House to agree to this expenditure. We had a right to expect the Government to take that step, because they made a definite promise at the General Election, which they have not carried out. They made a promise which has proved to be deliberately false, and we are entitled on behalf of the unemployed who are suffering under the means test to protest and say that we will not agree to any money being spent on shows like this until the Government have taken the first essential step of abolishing the means test. I will go gladly into the Lobby against this Vote on the ground that they ought first to abolish the means test.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. Stephen: I join in the protest against this Vote. We shall certainly divide the Committee against the proposed expenditure. Evidently the Government are determined, in spite of all that has happened, to make this ceremony as big an affair as possible. In view of the circumstances they would perhaps have been better advised if they are going to have the Coronation, to have made it as quiet as


possible. I am struck by the proposal for this big expenditure, of which we have only the preliminary in this Supplementary Estimate, in view of the attitude of the Government to other requests that have been made from time to time. The other day I heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a most brusque fashion, turn aside a request for the introduction of a pensions system for widows at 55. Anything that would be helpful to the people is turned down, but this big expenditure in connection with a show is approved.
In regard to the seats which are to be allocated at the price of 15s., one half the cost, I do not see why these individuals should have this gift from the public purse. I am sorry that there has been co-operation between the Labour party and the Government in this connection. Will the Government explain whether other people will also be given a gift of 15s. in order that they may celebrate this function? If the State can afford to give the representatives of various associations 15s., surely they will be able to give 15s. to each of the unemployed so that they may celebrate the occasion. It has been said that all phases of public life are to be represented on the stands. What associations have been consulted in regard to the unemployed and their relations to our national life? Perhaps the Financial Secretary will tell us what unemployment associations have been consulted. What associations have been approached in regard to sending a delegation? I shall be pleased to hear the answer, because if all phases of national life are to be represented it would be most misleading if the unemployed were not represented.
When the Government are making this gift to some of these associations I wonder whether they have taken any account of the special circumstances of the unemployed, because it will mean that they will have to give up their week's unemployment assistance if they have to sit on the Government stands at the Coronation. What unemployed associations have been consulted in the matter of representation? Have any ex-Service men's associations other than the British Legion been consulted? Is there to be any representation of ex-Service men and their dependants who have been denied pensions as a phase of our national life? There should be a stand for the victims of the last War who have been so harshly

treated by the Government. The party I represent think that the expenditure of money in this way is something which should be opposed ruthlessly in the House and in the country. There are far more needy cases. Last night I listened to the broadcast of an appeal for an organisation which is providing for 130 children who want to have a hospital outside the East End. They have a site at Banstead, and want £150,000. I think £150,000 would be far better spent in providing a hospital for these children than in setting up all this elaborate machinery, and I shall have the greatest pleasure in the Lobby in opposing this expenditure.

4.33 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: The vast majority of hon. Members will, I am sure, welcome the happy agreement which has been expressed in the speeches from the two Front Benches this afternoon. If Hon. Members who adopt the same antagonistic attitude as the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) towards the Coronation find that they lose support in the country, it will be their own fault and not the Government's. There are just one of two points I want to mention. The first is in connection with the illuminations. I was glad to hear the Financial Secretary say that Westminster Abbey was to be illuminated, I do not know whether he mentioned St. Paul's, but I would ask him, if it has not already been decided, seriously to consider not merely floodlighting these buildings but also illuminating them from the inside. No doubt some hon. Members were in Brussels a few years ago when the city was similarly illuminated. On that occasion the churches were lit up from inside and the stained glass windows created a most impressive effect. I would ask the Financial Secretary to look into this point.
The two main points I wish to mention are, first, profiteering in connection with the Coronation activities, and, secondly, the question of providing proper accommodation for spectators. I am the last person to grudge a penny which is going to be spent to lend proper dignity to this great solemn national ceremony but, nevertheless, I think the House should do everything in its power to see that the occasion is not exploited by individuals for making exorbitant private profits. It seems to me that there is a strong tendency for this to happen. The Government have assured us that they are taking


the most rigorous precautions to prevent profiteering in relation to their Defence expansion programme, and I would ask them seriously to consider extending those precautions to cover profiteering in connection with the Coronation. Hotel-keepers and owners of housing accommodation all over the city are demanding fancy prices and making fancy profits.

The Chairman: I think this is quite outside the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Sandys: In accepting this Estimate which is submitted to us I think hon. Members would like to feel that the Government were taking steps to prevent exorbitant profits being made in connection with the Coronation. I am dealing now with the question of the seating accommodation along the route—

The Chairman: The hon. Member is ven ingenious but I am afraid his explanation will not persuade me to allow him to pursue the matter.

Mr. Sandys: I bow to your Ruling, although it is a matter which would seem closely to concern this Estimate. I will leave the subject by expressing the hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer when framing his Budget will seriously consider the advisability of imposing a special Coronation profits tax.

Mr. Charles Brown: Surely the hon. Member is mistaken? Surely there is nobody who will make a profit out of the Coronation?

Mr. Sandys: Let me pass to the question of the accommodation for spectators in general. I fully appreciate the position in relation to the 15s. seats, explained by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith). I understand that these seats are mainly to be devoted to the representatives of organisations and, therefore, if the individual himself is not able to pay the amount, presumably the organisation will assist him in meeting the cost. But I feel that the provision of these stand seats for representatives of organisations does not altogether overcome the problem of providing accommodation for the general public. It is not sufficient merely to provide seating accommodation for certain organisations. Adequate arrangements must be made for the general public and

I would ask the Government not merely to consider the provision of seating accommodation, because that is very expensive to erect—

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): indicated assent.

Mr. Sandys: I suggest that what is needed is not so much seating accommodation on stands as some special facilities for standing room, and I would ask whether some of the money which is to be devoted to providing accommodation for spectators to view the procession might be devoted to providing in the parks gently sloping standing enclosures which would cost very little. A certain limited amount of space is, I understand, being provided for this purpose, but not enough. There are innumerable people who are perfectly well and strong enough to stand for a limited period, although they may not be able to wait up on crowded pavements all night. These people would gladly welcome any cheap or free standing accommodation that could be provided. It might necessitate an extension of the route, but I feel that a comparatively small extension of the route of the procession around the whole of Hyde Park instead of merely along one side of it would provide facilities for an immense increase in available standing accommodation. In conclusion, I want to emphasise that this is essentially a national ceremony, and therefore to express the hope that the Government will consider providing still greater facilities for those of the general public whose means are small to witness the Coronation procession.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. Kingsley Griffith: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) into the issue he raised, but merely to say that as he wanted the unemployed to be able to celebrate the occasion, so do I. I think the unemployed do desire to celebrate the occasion. The hon. Member has asked for free seats for them, but they differ from the view of the hon. Member. My point is a purely practical one, and has to do with our Dominion visitors. I have already raised the point with the Lord President of the Council by letter, but so far I have got no definite reply. As I understand it, the High Commissioners will have allotted to them a certain amount of space and in


due course they will, no doubt, arrange by ballot or otherwise how the space will be distributed among intending visitors.
The position is that when intending visitors apply to the High Commissioners they are told that they can do nothing because they do not know how much space they are to get. That has created some difficulty, because it will be realised that these people who are living thousands of miles away have to make all sorts of arrangements—I am thinking of those who are coming from South Africa as the matter first arose there—and all they have at the moment is that it is hoped an announcement will be made soon. I hope it will be made very soon, because time is running on, and it is particularly difficult for those who have not great means and yet want to make this the great occasion of their lives. The whole thing may be spoilt for them if they come here and do not see the ceremony itself. It would not have been worth their while going to all that expense in making the long journey. Therefore, I hope that earnest consideration will be given to this matter, for this is not only a great national occasion, but a great Imperial occasion.

4.45 p.m.

Sir Arnold Wilson: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in explaining the Estimate referred to the allocation of seats to "organisations." I hope that a place will be found for one group which has no organisation, but which deserves particularly well of our countrymen—the Albert and Edward Medallists. They belong to every walk of life in the Kingdom; they are the heroic holders of the Victoria Cross of civil life. No band of men is more representative of all that is finest and best in England. If room can he found for them, their countrymen will gladly pay both for the seats and all the expenses to enable them to come. In the words of Horace (Epistles II, 1. 197):
"Spectaret populum ludis attentius ipsis ut sibi praebentem nimio spectacula plura."
A spectator, were they present:
Would scan the show less closely than the crowd,
As men of whom the nation should be proud.
They would be a very honoured part of a great occasion. As regards seats in the Abbey, I hope I am not out of order in expressing the hope that precautions will be taken to ensure that no person who

has not taken the oath of allegiance in either House of Parliament should be entitled as of right to a seat in Westminster Abbey.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. Gluckstein: It would be stimulating to follow the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), who galloped on his favourite hobby-horse, but I do not rise to discuss whether the erection of the stands will do anybody any good, because it is obvious that the great bulk of the money will be spent on wages and material, and will, therefore, assist the very people for whom the hon. Member for Spennymoor and the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) purport to speak. I wish to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury a question as to the cost of the material that is being used for these seats. I was informed only to-day by a building contractor that the specification by the Government for the woodwork of the seats was of such a character that only the best joinery wood could be used. It was pointed out to me that the specification for that wood resulted in an immediate rise in the price of such wood by at least 6s. a standard, and that the price of wood for joinery has in consequence been very much dislocated ever since the orders for the stands were given. If that be so, it may account for the very high price which apparently would have to be charged if the seats were sold at their proper economic value. I am further informed that when this joinery wood has been subjected, as it will be, to the in-clemencies of the weather between now and May, it will be impossible to use it afterwards for joinery purposes, and it will be of use only for minor building operations, so that a considerable loss will be sustained on that account. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us something about that, for if that be the case, I think someone ought to be made responsible for the loss which must fall on the taxpayer.

4.51 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) referred to the happy agreement which exists on this matter, but a number of hon. Members on this side are not embraced in that circle of happiness. We are of opinion that the seats should be sold at their full market value and that if there is any money to be spent, it should be devoted


to providing free seats for those who happen to want seats and are unable to afford them. That, however, does not mean that the unemployed have any special desire to celebrate the Coronation. What the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) said was that if the Government could afford to give a grant of 15s. to those who are able to travel to London and to pay 15s. themselves, they could also afford to give the unemployed 15s. to celebrate the Coronation by the enjoyment of a good dinner. The unemployed would be prepared to celebrate at any time on the strength of a good dinner. The hon. Member for Norwood said that this will be a solemn affair. Does any hon. Member believe that it requires £152,000 to have a solemn affair? I do not see how any hon. Member has got into his head the idea that there is anything solemn about this. If it were to be a solemn affair, it would be simple and there would be no expense attached to it. I have read in certain histories—I do not know whether it is true or not—that when Sir Galahad was preparing to become a knight—[An HON. MEMBER: "Sir Gallacher!"] No, Sir Galahad—he spent the night before his accession to knighthood in solemn session with his sword in front of him.

Colonel Wedgwood: That is a fairy tale.

Mr. Gallacher: It may be a fairy tale—so much of the history relating to great persons is a fairy tale. At any rate, in that there is an idea of solemnity. But if Sir Galahad with his sword were to be presented in Hyde Park, and if for months before the Press were put on the job and there were advertisements in America, Canada and Africa of cheap fares for people to come over and watch Sir Galahad and his sword, there would not be anything solemn about it. This is a political demonstration, and all the money that is being spent is for political purposes. I am opposed to that. I do not know whether or not I shall be out of order in referring to the matter which was raised by the hon. Member for Norwood, but I shall speak about it from a different point of view. In regard to the allocation of Government seats, if there is any money to be spent by the Government, let it be spent in giving free seats to those who wish to attend and have no money. If there are any costs over and above those

which the allocation of the seats may involve, why should it come out of public funds? Let the Government make a register of the seats that are being let privately and put on them a tax sufficient to cover all expenses over and above the money which is obtained from Government seats.
If I go to a theatre or a cinema, I pay Entertainments Duty, because the cinema and theatre proprietors have to fork up so much for every person who goes to the show. Here we have all sorts of showmen letting seats in various institutions, but where is the tax? Until the Government are prepared to tax these people, not on the simple basis of putting a tax of a penny or 2d. a head on those who go to the show, but on the basis of the amount of profits made in connection with the Coronation, they have no right to ask for a penny of public money. In spite of any agreement that may have been arrived at, I ask hon. Members—even hon. Members opposite—to oppose the spending of this money. This has nothing whatever to do with whether one is loyal to the King or has taken the Oath of Allegiance. Reference has been made to the means test. A week or two ago I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would take steps to stop the operation of the means test in the case of the pensions of the blind. He refused to defer the operation of the means test in the case of those who are so terribly handicapped in life.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is making two mistakes. Not only is he wandering from the Vote, but he is discussing a previous Debate in this Session on a different matter. He must not do that.

Mr. Gallacher: I wi11 not do it. I will simply say that there cannot he, in any circumstances, any justification for the expenditure of £152,000 on such a show. Hon. Members have said that people from here, there and everywhere will come to England for the Coronation, and that it will be the greatest occasion of their lives. Are we to spend £152,000 because some people want to have the greatest occasion of their life—because they want to go back to America, Canada, Africa and all part of the world, and say, "What a great show"? What has that to do with anything that is solemn or decent? When they come over and see the great show in London, will they go to the derelict areas, and afterwards say they saw those


areas and people starving there while the great show was going on? It is a scandal that anybody should come forward and propose the spending of £152,000 in connection with such a matter when there is no need to spend a penny, because there is the possibility of taxing those who are making profits and of providing in that way all that is necessary to meet the cost of the show. Therefore, I ask hon. Members to say that public money shall not be spent on this occasion until the Government are prepared to make a statement as to how they are going to deal with the question of Government seats and ensure, by taxing those who make profits from the show, that no public money will be spent.

4.59 p.m.

Mr. G. Hardie: I wish to do something that I have done on several previous occasions when supplementary Estimates have been brought forward. On Thursday last the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence said that everything was being done to examine every account with meticulous care, but the right hon. Gentleman seemed then to forget that a few nights previously some hon. Members had been trying to find out what price had been paid for Lansdowne House. Now it is a question of the construction of certain seating accommodation. The item is for the cost of preparation of Westminster Abbey and annex and the erection of stands. If there has been meticulous care why is it that it has come to light, in spite of the Government's efforts to keep things secret, that certain things in regard to the preparations for this kind of work have not been clean and above board?
Surely the test of the loyalty of those people who claim to be super-loyal is to see that the State is not robbed because of some State function. In regard to the steel tubes and the auxiliary fittings that are being delivered for the erection of these stands, have the Government, with their meticulous methods of going into these accounts, satisfied themselves that these things are honestly supplied? Can the Lord President of the Council find out what happens to these steel tubes and say how many hands they went through before they arrived for erection as stands? Can he say, too, why three different types of people dealt with the wood before it arrived? Why has not the House been told that the system

adopted is that when the timber is bought a price is fixed for its use for another purpose after it has served its purpose on the stands. I was looking at some of the timber and there are certain of these planks which will not bear the strain between the five-foot centres if there is a crush. Where there is a resinous knot in the wood, you have to be careful where it rests. I measured three of the planks and discovered that when they were put in their place the knot was in between the centres and not over the centres where it should he for safety. These are the kind of things upon which the £152,000 is being wasted.
If people want to see the Coronation why cannot they wait for a dry day and have it in a big field where everybody could have a chance of seeing it? Instead of that the Government choose the smallest accommodation in order to carry out what they consider is a very important function. You could have it in Hyde Park, or in the open country where there are plenty of beautiful amphitheatres. There are some in Scotland which could hold all the people who would want to see it, and you could, incidentally, take back that stone which belongs to us. They say that the Scots have a firm grip, but it is not half so firm as the grip of the English when they get hold of something. Common decency would have returned that stone long ago. There is an item in the Estimates of £1,000 for the Earl Marshall's office. Is that sum for personal expenditure, or is it for a Secretary? While we are asked to vote this money there are in Glasgow people who are pleading, not for three meals a day, because they know they cannot get them, but for a mere subsistence. I had a letter this morning from the father of seven children who are living in one room. I find in all these cases the meticulous methods of the Employment Exchange agent, who goes round in order to investigate.

The Chairman: The hon. Member will realise that he cannot follow that line any further.

Mr. Hardie: I was merely making a comparison between the expenditure of this money and the pence that would give life to these people.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: May I ask what the Financial Secretary thinks will be the total


cost of the whole of the Coronation ceremony? The Vote before us is, I take it, an appropriation-in-aid and does not cover the whole expenditure. With regard to the allocation of seats, we are informed that the prices are to be cut down to £1 2s. 6d. and 15s. Various sections of the community will be invited, such as ex-service men and people of high standing. Will the dearer seats be allocated to the more wealthy people? We want to have some idea to whom they will be given. I am sorry that our representatives could not come to some agreement on this point. I would rather that anybody who wanted to see the Coronation should pay the full price for the seats so that no cost should fall on the community, as it will now. However, I am not going to fight against that because I am loyal to my people who made this agreement and I will accept what they have done, because they know perhaps more of the circumstances than I do. This matter, however, has to be regarded in the wider aspect. Something might have been done for the poorer sections of the community who cannot come to London but who want to extend their loyalty to the Crown. If some grant could have been, made to them, it would have been more appropriate than giving cheap seats to people who could pay the full price for them. There are many people suffering hardship who would have been only too pleased to get something to commemorate this occasion. An hon. Member on this side said that the expenditure of this money would go in wages I take it that he meant it would be for the benefit of the community. I have always argued that if we gave better pensions and increased unemployment pay, it would be for the benefit of the State, because it would give more spending power to the people. Therefore, I think that on this occasion better use could have been made of the money.

5.12 p.m.

Sir Francis Acland: May I add a word from the point of view of fact rather than of speculation? I happen to know that the timber for the stands is being provided by the Forestry Commission, and I can assure the Committee that it is not so badly knotted, as the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) suggested, that it would break if five or six people sat on it. It is the proper sort of timber for the

purpose to which it will be put. There can be no suggestion that five or six people are making a profit on it intermediately. It is a transaction between one Government Department and another. I really think that we might assume for once that there is no dark scandal concealed in the proposals which the Government are putting before us and that it is a fairly straightforward arrangement, considering the fact that we ought to give free seats to some of our Imperial guests on occasions of this kind. I hope, therefore, that we may agree to it and pass on to more important things.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. Kelly: It is news to us that the timber is coming from the Forestry Commission, because the other day we heard that an arrangement had been made that those who sold the timber were to take it back again when the stands were no longer needed. Are we to understand that the Forestry Commission will take this timber back? If so, it is a new transaction for the Commission. I have never heard of them purchasing back timber. I have heard of them selling it, but it is something new for them to purchase it. I think that the transaction needs to be watched, in spite of what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland). I want to utter my protest against the price for the seats being reduced and a proportion of the cost coming out of national funds. The Financial Secretary did not give us any indication as to the stands which were being erected. I see many of them round the Houses of Parliament, in Parliament Square, Piccadilly and on the Embankment. Are all those stands being erected by the Office of Works?
I understand that a certain number of seats are being allocated for children. Are those children to be asked to pay for the seats? While I protest against adults getting these seats at reduced prices under the conditions already mentioned, I certainly am not asking that the children should be called upon to pay any sum. Further, is the Office of Works persisting in the reported intention to place heating apparatus underneath the stands for the purpose of warming food? I consider that it would be very dangerous to have any heating apparatus underneath the stands. I have heard


such a thing suggested and I hope it is not being seriously considered. With reference to the decorations, we are told that £20,000 is to be spent upon decorating the streets. I was under the impression that the Westminster City Council had undertaken the decoration of the streets in Westminster. If so, are we to understand that the Government propose to elaborate and embellish the council's scheme of decoration—that they are going to add further decorations to those already decided upon by the Westminster City Council? I hope that the question of the price of seats will be reconsidered, and that those to whom they are allotted will pay, at least, the cost price.

5.17 p.m.

Miss Wilkinson: I wish briefly to emphasise the point which has been raised with regard to taxation and the price of seats. I appreciate the reasons which led the leaders of the Labour party to support the idea of certain seats being let at a subsidised price so that people who are not able to afford the full amount, particularly people in a representative capacity, like nurses and so forth, should have this privilege. But it seems to me that we ought not, without imposing some tax, to allow the vast sums to change hands which we are told in the Press are changing hands, in respect of what is not in any sense a religious ceremony but the show part of the Coronation proceedings only. It surely is as much a show to those who go to watch it from windows and from the streets, as it will be to those who will see it in the cinemas two or three hours later and all of whom will have to pay Entertainment Duty. It is not a question of a reasonable rent being charged to people who want to go to see the ceremony. It is a case in which definite profiteering is being alleged and I think proved by practically every newspaper in the country and by all those who have made any inquiries into the prices of seats. We are told that these seats cost 30s. each to erect. They are being sold at 12 guineas each while seats in windows are changing hands at from 10 to 12 guineas each. Could we not have some agreement on the part of the Government that in addition to the subsidised seats—

The Chairman: Various references have been made to a suggestion of that kind

and I was loath to stop those references earlier, but the hon. Lady is now elaborating what appears to be a proposal for a new tax, or an extension of an existing tax, and I am afraid that we cannot go into a matter of that sort upon this Vote.

Miss Wilkinson: Am I not in order in suggesting that what is happening indicates a grave dereliction of duty on the part of the Government if they do not collect tax on these seats?

The Chairman: As the hon. Lady has asked me the question as a point of Order, I must say that the answer is "No." The Government may be guilty of a vast number of derelictions of duty but they do not arise on this Vote.

Miss Wilkinson: I am glad to find, Sir Dennis, that you and I are in agreement with regard to the Government, and I hope that the responsible Minister will explain why, when all other entertainments have to pay tax, this entertainment is not to be taxed. I wish to know whether the Government will not put into force existing legislation in this respect. It might then be possible to provide seats for those who cannot afford even 15s. I do not know what enthusiasm there will be among the unemployed to see the Coronation but if it is their wish, then it seems to me they ought to be represented among those who will see it, and it is impossible to ask an unemployed man to pay for one seat—apart from the cost of travelling to London—the amount that he would receive for a whole week's subsistence. I therefore ask whether any arrangements whatever are being made for the poorest section of our community, to whom we owe such a great deal—the unemployed of this country—who may desire to see the ceremony but who certainly cannot afford to pay a whole week's allowance for a seat.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. McEntee: I wish to put a question to the Financial Secretary in regard to the timber which is being used in the stands. I have spent a good part of my life in the timber trade and I was amazed to hear the statement that the Forestry Commission were purchasing this timber.

Sir F. Acland: Were supplying it.

Mr. McEntee: I presume if they are supplying it that they must have purchased it.

Sir F. Acland: No, it is our own timber.

Mr. McEntee: If the right hon. Gentleman means to say that the timber which is being used in the stands is home-grown timber, he is talking nonsense.

Sir F. Acland: I am sorry, but I did mean that of course.

Mr. McEntee: I understood that the Forestry Commission was a body which looked after the growing of timber in our own country. Perhaps they have also something to do with the growing of timber within the Empire, but I always thought their activities were confined to home-grown timber. The timber which is now being used in these stands is not home-grown timber and everybody knows it. Apart from that, whether it is the Forestry Commission or some combination of timber merchants acting as agents who have purchased and supplied the timber to the Government, I am concerned to know what price is being paid per standard for this, as first-class joinery timber, and if first-class joinery timber is being purchased at a given price, then I am anxious to know at what price the timber will be sold back to the organisation or the persons who are supplying it.
The statement was made earlier that this timber, which is supposed to be of first-class joinery quality, will not be useful, except as very poor timber, in ordinary building work, after it has been used in these stands. I do not think that statement is borne out by the facts. I do not think that the use to which the timber will be put in these stands will damage it to such an extent as to cause it to fetch a price much lower than that at which it is being purchased. Some of it, but not much, may be damaged by cutting and a reasonable estimate can be made of the extent of such damage. The only other damage likely to be done to it is that caused by grit off the feet of the people walking upon it, but the actual quality of the timber should not be any worse as a consequence of its use in this way. Indeed it ought to be worth very nearly the same price after the Coronation as it is worth now, less the costs of transference. Is it possible to give the Committee the two prices which I have indicated? It is important, I think, that we should know both the price at which it is being bought and the price at which it will be re-sold.
Turning to another matter which has already been mentioned by some of my hon. Friends, I would ask whether it is not possible, even now, that some sort of tax should be imposed to meet the general standard of low prices which I think quite rightly, has been arranged to meet the need of some people who will desire to see the Coronation procession. If something could be done in the manner suggested by some of my hon. Friends I think it would commend itself to the general public. I think it would be extraordinary, however, if we were to invite people to the Coronation and then merely because they can afford it to ask them to pay for the seats provided for them. I do not agree with that suggestion at all. When one asks visitors to one's house it is not usual to ask them to pay for the chairs on which they sit and when we invite visitors here to the Coronation it would be unreasonable to ask them to pay for seats. On the other hand, the position of those to whom my hon. Friends have referred is, of course, entirely different and I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will be able to give the Committee some further information on the points which have been raised.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. Short: I think we are entitled to a more complete statement than we have yet had on the cost of the seating accommodation. We are told by the Financial Secretary that the cost is estimated at about 30s. per seat. From my own observation and my knowledge of building and steel production, that seems to be excessive. Indeed, it appears to be something in the nature of a ramp, having regard to the actual cost of production, and we are entitled to ask for a more detailed statement. I suggest that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman should give us an example of one stand, stating the number of seats, the cost of the timber, the cost of the tubes and the cost of erection. The erection of a stand on the steel-tube principle is very easy and ought not to cost a great deal in labour. There is not a great deal of skill required in it and I venture to suggest that highly-skilled workers' wages are not being paid, for the erection of the steel-tube standards or indeed for the joinery work. I would like a fuller statement as to the wages which are being paid to the joiners and to the labourers, skilled and unskilled, as well as to those engaged in the erection of the steel tube standards,


and all other costs in relation to this matter. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman can justify an expenditure of 30s. per seat I shall be surprised.
I gather also that we are going to pay out of this sum some £1,800 for broadcasting. I do not understand this expenditure. We have a Broadcasting Corporation, and quite recently we increased their allocation of money. I should, therefore, like the Financial Secretary to explain more fully why this charge should fall upon the Government and not upon the Corporation. It may well be that this is in connection with sound amplifiers and that the police will want to have a larger measure of control, having regard to the large crowds and particularly to the large number of children who will be in attendance. This explanation may, of course, to some extent justify this expenditure, but, on the other handy I should like the hon. Gentleman to explain why it is that the charge has fallen upon the Government, outside of what I have just said, rather than upon the Broad casting Corporation. Then I should like the hon. and gallant Gentleman to tell us why it is that no seats have been provided for children. I understand from his statement that children will be found standing room but no seats. This is an interesting event which thousands of children will desire to see, and I think we ought to provide, as far as possible, seating accommodation for them.
The third point to which I particularly want to refer is the question of the allocation of tickets. I should like the hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee which are the organisations that are considered to be representative of our national life, and I should like him to give us a list. I should like to know whether disposal of the tickets by the respective organisations is to be confined meticulously to the members of those organisations and whether the Government are taking any steps to overlook this matter and to see that the tickets, once allocated to a particular organisation, are duly disposed of to the people for whom the tickets were originally intended. I say that because there is not a Member of this House who does not recall—though it has nothing to do with the Government, and I merely give it as an illustration—the confusion in connection with the English football cup final, when thousands of tickets are made available but nobody seems to have

them. I admit that 90,000 people get there, but nobody knows, and there is tremendous profiteering in the disposal of these tickets.
If £152,000 is being found by the State, the largest proportion of which is being consumed in the provision of the requisite accommodation, I think we are entitled, if we are going to allocate these tickets to various representative organisations—and I make no complaint about that, because we should take the necessary steps to see that they reach the people for whom they were originally intended—to see that there is no profiteering. It is easy, of course, to say that we have so many tickets at our disposal and then to sell them at higher prices to people who have nothing to do with the organisation. We know all about it, and I hope this point will not only be kept in mind but will receive some kind of an answer to-night.

5.35 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Agnew: There is one point about the allocation of seats about which I should like to ask the Financial Secretary, who, in his opening speech, said that the allocation was to be made so that it was on a basis representing as broadly as possible all phases of the national life. I understand from that that manual workers as such will secure representation on these stands, and I take it that a convenient way, in the first place, of securing such representation for them would be by approaching, or giving seats to, the various trade unions in which many workers in this country are enrolled. But here it is that a difficulty does in some cases arise. In my own constituency there is a number of manual workers, mine workers and engineers, but in practically the whole of that part of the county of Cornwall trade unionism as such scarcely exists at all.

Mr. Kelly: The hon. and gallant Member is completely wrong, and I hope he will not persist in that statement. I know of at least three or four branches with hundreds of members in that district.

Lieut.-Commander Agnew: I am aware that three or four branches exist there, but I am also aware that at a recent revival meeting in Camborne of the. Transport and General Workers' Union only 22 men attended. If the Financial Secretary would try to meet the difficulty


in this way, some fairness would come about, namely, that he should in the case of these workers approach their employers with a view to their allocating an appropriate number of seats to the particular firms by which the men are employed. In that way, if the method of representation through the trade unions was supplemented, I think those workers who do not belong to trade unions would secure their fair share of representation.

5.37 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The Committee will agree that the Government have not lacked advice in this matter, because we have had it from all sides of the Committee, and it has varied a great deal. There have been some hon. Members who thought the prices of the seats were too dear, and some who have thought, on the other hand, that no price should be charged at all, and there have even been some who thought that the Coronation itself should not be held in Westminster Abbey, but, I think the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) said, on a Scottish hillside. [An HON. MEMBER: "In Yorkshire."] No, I think the hon. Member said Scotland, because he also coupled it with a desire for good weather. The questions were numerous, but a number of them related to the preparation of the stands, and I should like to answer some of these. In particular there was a question raised by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Short) and by one other hon. Member as to the steps that were being taken to ensure that the tickets which were allocated to organisations representative of various phases of national life were used for those for whom they were intended, and that there was no resale, or profiteering, or loose treatment of these tickets. I think that was a point of importance, and I should like to give the Committee some reassurance.
Precautions are being taken. It is made a condition of the offer of allotment of tickets that tickets shall not be re-sold, but issued only in accordance with a list of names and addresses to be supplied in duplicate to the Office of Works, one copy of which will be given to the steward on duty on the stand. Each ticket will be provided with a counterfoil, which must be signed by the actual user of the ticket, and which is detached by the steward. In addition, each ticket issued will bear the stamp of the organisation through

whose agency it is issued, or the signature of the responsible issuing official. Any counterfoil not bearing this stamp or signature would, of course be regarded with suspicion. Tickets will bear the statement that they cannot be re-sold and that if this is done, they will be invalid, and each ticket will bear the statement that it is issued under the authority of the First Commissioner of Works, who acts under powers conferred upon him by the Parks Regulation Act. I hope that with these precautions we shall ensure that in fact the tickets get to the destination intended. The hon. Member also asked for a list, but I am not in a position to give that. The Coronation Committee of the Privy Council has been working very carefully on the preparation of a scheme to give as wide a representation as possible, but the matter is not yet completely closed.

Miss Wilkinson: On a point of Order. I think this is of some importance. We are being asked to subsidise tickets on the ground that people who are to be invited by the organisations are people who ought to be given subsidised tickets, and yet we are not supplied with any list of the organisations. I suggest that in those circumstances we cannot give a vote.

The Chairman: That is not a point of Order, but a point for debate.

Miss Wilkinson: But surely, as we are being asked to vote public money—

The Chairman: That is not a point of Order. Whether the Government are giving all the information which Members think they ought to give, is a matter for debate.

Miss Wilkinson: I am sorry, Sir Dennis, but may I ask your Ruling, because we here of the Opposition have to protect the public purse?

The Chairman: I do not want the hon. Lady to misunderstand me. I was not objecting to her raising the point, but only to it being raised as a point of Order when it was not a matter of order. It is, however, quite a legitimate point to raise in the Debate.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I was proceeding to say that, for that reason, it has not yet been possible to give final instructions to those concerned with the allocation of seats for Colonial and Dominions visitors. I think the hon.


Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) asked that question. I hope that that can be done very soon now. The work is really in an advanced stage, we quite recognise that these people have arrangements to make and final instructions will be given as soon as possible. The commissioners have not been kept in ignorance of the work that has been done, but the final allocation has not yet reached them for the reason that I have mentioned.

Mr. Stephen: Could the Lord President of the Council not give us the information? The Financial Secretary might find it impossible, but the Lord President of the Council surely could give us some information.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The position is as I have stated. The Coronation Committee is a Committee of the Privy Council, which, in fact, contains representatives of all parties.

Mr. Manton: We have none.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: Of all parties, I should say, which are active in promoting the ceremony of the Coronation. Another point of importance raised to which I should like to reply, was in relation to the position of the stands. It was, I think, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly), who said, "Where are all these stands? We see stands everywhere, but how many are we really voting for to-night? What stands are they, and how were the contracts given out?" This was raised also by other hon. Members. The position is that tenders for the stands in the Royal Parks were invited in three sections: first section, Hyde Park and Hamilton Place Gardens; second section, Constitution Hill, Queen Victoria Memorial Gardens, the Mall, and the Admiralty Arch; and third section, Whitehall, Parliament Square, and the Victoria Embankment. These tenders were put up to public advertisement in the technical and daily Press; offers were received from seven firms, and three different firms obtained the contracts for these sections. I can assure the hon. Members that scrutiny was applied when these tenders were examined and the offers considered by the Office of Works.

Mr. Hardie: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether the combine got to know what was the difference in the prices accepted?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I could not answer that question without notice. The tenders were duly scrutinised and the lowest offers accepted, and three separate contractors have received contracts. The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Short), as well as several other hon. Members, was concerned about the price. The higher cost can be attributed to the rise in the cost of labour and of materials, and also to the increased cost of erecting rear seats to a considerable height. Further, a good deal of the work has been done in steel, and the quantity of steel used in this work cannot to any great extent be afterwards absorbed into general use, and having regard to the point that the number of seats in course of erection is four times the number provided on the occasion of the Jubilee.
Several hon. Members raised the question of the origin of the wood, and the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) spoke of the interest of the Forestry Commissioners in the supply of home-grown timber. A part of the work is being carried out with home-grown timber, and the rest with Empire timber. One hon. Member said we were using first-class joinery wood and spoiling it for house building, but that is not my information. It has to be a good, sound wood, able to take considerable weight; it is obvious that we could not run any risks by using wood that was anything but sound and good; but it is not what could be called first-class joinery wood. It is all home-grown or of Empire origin, and the steel used is also of British manufacture.

Mr. Hardie: Is not the homegrown timber a little bit of English oak which has been used for decoration purposes?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: No, I understand there is a considerable amount of home-grown timber used in the general scheme of construction and decoration.

Miss Wilkinson: How much?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: As much as could properly be used in that work. The hon. Lady does not object to our using as much as possible, I suppose?

Miss Wilkinson: No, but the hon. Lady objects very strongly to the amount of loose generalisations the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is giving us, and the fact that he is giving us no indication of the quantities at all.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The work was put out to tenders which were advertised in the ordinary technical Press. How otherwise could it have been placed? These tenders, when received, were scrutinised by experts with probably quite as much experience in the matter as the hon. Lady.

Miss Wilkinson: I only want to know.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: All those tenders have duly gone through the proper machinery, and the work is now in hand. I take it that the general feeling of this Committee is that we should now proceed to vote on this Estimate? A point was made by the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) that the holders of certain medals should be considered in the allotting of seats. I am sure that is a point which the Coronation Committee will consider. While I am not in a position to make any promise that they can make an allocation of seats to those people, any more than to the members of any other organisation, undoubtedly any points of that kind will be considered.

Mr. Maxton: There was the other point about Peers who have not taken the Oath.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I have noted that point, but I am not aware that anyone is in that position. I hope the Committee will now pass this Vote, because I think the great majority of Members will agree that we should like to make all the preparations for the Coronation worthy of the great occasion which it is, and will agree also to homologate the decision of the Coronation Committee to let the seats in the stands at something less than their actual cost in order to enable as many people as possible to be present.

Mr. Kelly: A point was put as to the contractors or the Forestry Commissioners taking back the timber after the Coronation.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The position is that the Government do not buy the timber. Its disposal afterwards is a ques-

tion between the contractor and the supplier of the timber, and is not a matter which is in the Government's hands.

5.51 p.m.

Miss Wilkinson: I want to call the attention of the Committee to the previous protests I have made against the unsatisfactory statement which we have had this afternoon. It is not a question of whether we are approving the arrangements for the Coronation or not. I am protesting against the way in which this Committee has been treated with contempt by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He has not told us the cost of these stands or the amount of the insurance, waving that off with the statement that that point would come up at some time or other. He has asked us to subsidise organisations and has not told us which they are. He does not tell us how much English wood is being used, and, in short, he seems to know nothing about it. He has not given us one single fact. Now we are asked to proceed to vote £150,000, and as a representative of one of the poorest constituencies in this country, which will have to share the burden of this cost, I want to make my protest against this unsatisfactory statement.

Mr. Potts: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us whether there will be any difference between the price for seats at the front and at the back of a particular stand? I know there will be variations in the prices of seats on different stands, but I am asking about the front seats and the back seats on any particular stand.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The only difference in price is between an uncovered stand and a covered stand. Otherwise there will be no variation in the price of the seats.

Question put,
That a sum, not exceeding £152,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for Expenses connected with His Coronation.

The Committee divided; Ayes 238, Noes 11.

Division No. 86.]
AYES.
[5.51 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Banfield, J. W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Barrie, Sir C. C.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Assheton, R.
Baxter, A. Beverley


Albery, Sir Irving
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)


Allen, Lt.-Col- J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.




Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N.
Groves, T. E.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Benson, G.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Blair, Sir R.
Guy, J. C. M.
Ramsbotham, H.


Blindeli, Sir J.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Bossom, A. C.
Hamilton, Sir G. C,
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hannah, I. C.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Bracken, B.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Brass, Sir W.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Remer, J. R.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Robinson, J. R, (Blackpool)


Bromfield, W.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Ropner, Colonel L.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Holmes, J. S.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Bull, B. B.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. W.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Cary, R. A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Salmon, Sir I.


Castiereagh, Viscount
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sanders, W. S.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hunter, T.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Channon, H.
Jackson, Sir H.
Sandys, E. D.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Savery, Sir Servington


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)
 Keeling, E. H.
Selley, H. R.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Shakespeare, G. H.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Short, A.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D J.
 Leckie, J. A.
Simpson, F. B.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Lees-Jones, J.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees-(K'ly)


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Lewis, O.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Liddall, W. S.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Crossley, A. C.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Culverwell, C. T.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C G.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
MacDonald, Rt, Hon. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Davison, Sir W. H
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


De la Bère, R.
McEntee, V. La T.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Denville, Alfred
 McKie, J. H.
Sutcliffe, H.


Doland, G. F.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Tate, Mavis C.


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Macquisten, F. A.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Maitland, A.
Tinker, J. J.


Dugdale, Major T. L.
 Makins, Brig.-Gen. E
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Duggan, H. J.
Marges son, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Turton, R. H.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Markham, S. F.
Viant, S. P.


Ede, J. C.
Mathers, G.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W E.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Warrender, Sir V.


Ellis, Sir G.
Meller, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Watkins, F. C.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wayland, Sir W. A


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Everard, W. L.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Findlay, Sir E.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Wells, S. R.


Foot, D. M.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
White, H. Graham


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Furness, S. N.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Ganzoni, Sir J.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Gardner, B. W.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gluckstein, L. H.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Wise, A. R.


Goldie, N. B.
Patrick, C. M.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Gower, Sir R. V.
Peake, O.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Penny, Sir G.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Grant-Ferris, R.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Granville, E. L.
Petherick, M.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Pilkington, R.
Commander Southby and Lieut.-


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Colonel Llewellin.


Grimston, R. V.
Potts, J.





NOES.


Batey, J.
Maxton, J.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Gallacher, W.
Pritt, D. N.



Henderson T. (Tradeston)
Salter, Dr. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Kelly, W. T.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Mr. Stephen and Mr. Hardle.


McGhee, H. G.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

CLASS II.

COLONIAL AND MIDDLE EASTERN SERVICES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £106,620, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for sundry Colonial and Middle Eastern Services under His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain Non-effective Services and Grants in Aid.

6.2 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The amounts for this Supplementary Estimate are set out in pages 6, 7 and 8 of the White Paper, and all that I need do, in opening, is to explain exactly how the sums have been arrived at. The first three items, namely, Somaliland, Malta and Kenya, and the second item on Malta, arise directly out of the Italo-Abyssinian War, which continued during last spring and summer after the regular Estimates for the year had been prepared and laid before Parliament.
Somaliland is put down first. Somaliland is a grant-in-aid territory. It does not pay its way, and therefore any additional expenditure has to be voted by this House. The additional cost is due to the appointment of additional officers for frontier patrol and to the calling up of the reserve company of the Somaliland Camel Corps, in order to prevent incidents on the frontier between Italian and British Somaliland. As a matter of fact, the British taxpayer will not be called upon to pay more money in respect of British Somaliland during the present financial year because the transit trade from Abyssinia through British Somaliland to Italian Somaliland has increased considerably and the revenues of the territory have therefore gone up proportionately. We calculate that the increased revenue will, in fact, pay for the increased protective services which we have had to provide there.
Next, Malta. Supplementary Estimates have already been presented, last autumn, for naval, military and air expenditure at Malta, under the heading of better defences during the time when there was tension in the Mediterranean during the Italo-Abyssinian War. This Vote is for the amount spent at the same time upon improved civilian defences. For instance,

we had to send out quickly to Malta anti-gas respirators for the civilian population. We had to establish an anti-gas school and train people in passive defence of Malta in case an attack had taken place during the sanctions period. There were also certain special arrangements which had to be made involving the expenditure of money in connection with the preparation of hospitals in case of attack.
Coming to subhead (b) this item has nothing to do with the Italo-Abyssinian dispute, but arises out of the fact that the Turkish Government in 1934 passed a new law, in the Turkish Parliament at Angora, limiting to Turkish subjects the right of people to follow certain professions and occupations. The result of the coming into force of that law was that a considerable number of Maltese resident in Asia Minor, who are British subjects, were thrown out of work. Owing to the densely populated character of Malta, it was impossible to repatriate them all at once. The total number was, I understand, about 1,250, who lost their means of occupation in Turkey. We hope gradually to absorb them and get them into work, but meanwhile they have to be paid subsistence, as they were reaching the point of destitution. The British Government and the local Maltese taxpayers are each paying a percentage of the cost of maintaining these British subjects.
The next item, Kenya, undoubtedly arises out of the Italo-Abyssinian dispute. The largest proportion of this sum is for increased frontier patrols that had to be sent out. There is also an item for expediting what we have for some time intended to do. The tension made us expedite last year what we had intended to do this year, namely, to improve the preparations for the coast defences of Kenya Protectorate. It involves sending out certain special personnel to train coast defence personnel out there, and to make the necessary surveys and reports for the improvement of the coast defences.
There is an increase of £3,000 for telegraphing, which is almost entirely due to the enormous mass of additional telegraphing that we had to do during the constitutional crisis here last October, in keeping Governors informed of what was going on in regard to the Abdication of King Edward VIII, and in telegraphing our instruction with regard to the


Accession of King George VI. As that exceeds our original telegraphing Vote, an extra Vote has had to be made.
Of course, the largest gross item in this Supplementary Vote, as it appears in the Paper, is in respect of the sums necessary to be paid to defray the cost of sending large reinforcements to Palestine during the disturbances up to October last year. The bulk of it, as the Committee will see, is received back again from Palestine. There is a slight difference. The gross amount is £1,105,000, and we get back from Palestine only £1,084,410. The difference is in respect of Transjordan and is due to the fact that, under the approved allocation, the cost of the Air Force garrison in Palestine and Transjordan is divided equally between those countries, except as regards the works services. The cost of the works in Palestine is charged to Palestine, and the cost of the works in Transjordan is charged to Transjordan. The revenues of Transjordan are insufficient to meet the expenditure without an Exchequer grant-in-aid, and it is necessary therefore to make provision in the Middle Eastern Services Vote for Transjordan's share of the total cost of the Royal Air Force garrison. The difference to which I have referred is caused purely by the fact that Transjordan's revenue is unable to meet the cost this year.
There is a Vote in the Supplementary Estimate for an advance on loan to the cultivators of Transjordan, of money to buy seeds, owing to the very bad crop season last year. There was a bad drought in the winter last year and the cultivators were in great difficulty. It is a very poor country and it is only right that we, as the Mandatory Power, should help them out. I am glad to say that the rains this year have been very different, almost excessive, and I have little doubt that, as on a previous occasion, the small advance will be paid back.
Although we get the money back from Palestine, the Committee are entitled to know how this large sum is arrived at and what is the basis. The additional cost of troops is obviously to be explained by the large temporary increase in garrisons, but since the cessation of disorder, in October last, it has been arranged to reduce the emergency garrison to seven battalions, at which it stands to-day, and they are being retained there. The items which make up this large amount are as

follows: The largest is in respect of sea transport. The cost of conveying troops to Palestine and bringing a large proportion of them back came to no less than £284,000. The next largest item is for accommodation. Buildings had to be taken over, huts erected, and the like, to provide accommodation for the additional troops. That cost nearly the same amount, namely, £283,000. Movements inside the country, to Egypt and the like, cost £225,000, and supplies and remounts £153,000, while additional pay and allowances to the troops for service overseas, against what they get in this country, amounted to £128,000. That is the cost which, as I have said, has to be voted now, and is recoverable from Palestine.
It will be realised that the cost of suppressing the disorders in Palestine is throwing a very considerable burden on the finances of Palestine. Palestine has considerable surplus funds, accumulated during the last three years, and, as Palestine has got the money, it is perhaps natural in the circumstances that Palestine should be asked to pay the difference between the cost of maintaining the troops at home here, where they would naturally be, and the cost of maintaining them in Palestine. I want to take this opportunity of saying that I do not preclude myself from examination, in consultation with the Treasury and the Palestine Government, the possibility of reconsidering the exact proportion of defence expenditure recoverable from Palestine next year and in subsequent years, in the light of the territory's financial position when this can be more accurately gauged. All that I know is that, in consequence of the disturbances, the revenue of Palestine is going down, which perhaps is natural in the circumstances, and that the financial position of the Palestine Government to-day is, in consequence of the disturbances, very different from the comparatively favourable financial position of a year ago.
Of course, it is clear that the financial position of Palestine in the future must depend on various factors, at present unascertained and unascertainable. In the first place, the decisions taken by His Majesty's Government on the recommendations of the Royal Commission, when these are known—and I have no means and shall have no means of knowing what they are likely to be until they are presented—may have a bearing upon


the finances of the country as well as upon the political situation. It would be out of order for me to say anything more than that on the matter. The whole question of the future of Palestine being sub judice before Lord Peel's Commission at the present moment, it is obvious that I cannot prophesy as to how much money will be required next year to finance the defence of Palestine, or whether that will fall upon the Palestine taxpayers at large or whether it will be necessary to come to the House of Commons for a Supplementary Estimate in due course to deal with that matter.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.
I move this reduction, not because I wish to disturb the right hon. Gentleman in paying his debts or in improving the services in the Near East, but because we are perhaps entitled to a little more information that he has seen fit to give us at the moment. Before, however, dealing with either the Malta, Kenya, Somaliland or Arabian Votes, might I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question with regard to the statement at the bottom of page 5 of the Estimate, where we are informed that:
Expenditure out of these grants-in-aid will not be accounted for in detail to the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
Is that a precedent? Is it an innovation? If that should be the case, we shall certainly be entitled to know why such expenditure is not to be submitted to the Comptroller and Auditor-General. It is true that the expenditure is described as being due to special causes, or for special purposes, but I do not quite see why this innovation should happen without some adequate explanation from the right hon. Gentleman. In the second place, I should like to know who is responsible for the publication of this Supplementary Estimate, for I notice that the items under Sub-head A—Somaliland, Malta, and Kenya—and part of that for Arabia, are described as arising out of the Italo-Ethopian dispute. I went to the Library to consult a dictionary to see exactly what a dispute was. I found varying interpretations, and I recall the right hon. Gentleman's own description, "the Italo-Abyssinian war." This document, however, under the signature of the

Financial Secretary to the Treasury, states that this special expenditure is due to the Italo-Ethiopian dispute. I discovered that "dispute" is interpreted as a controversy, a debate, a heated contention, a quarrel, a difference of opinion; and in another dictionary I discovered that to quarrel was to throw darts at each other. It seems to me that this was not so much a dispute in the ordinarily accepted sense of the term, but was a war, an open defiance of international law, brutal cold-blooded murder, territorial acquisition if you like to put it in that way. Why the Financial Secretary should describe as a dispute something which involved this nation in the expenditure of considerable sums of money, I do not know. I cannot understand his tenderness for Mussolini, who is generally known to be not too friendly to this country or to the Empire. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether the terminology is recorded here at the express wish of His Majesty's Government, or whether the term that he himself used, namely, "war," ought not to be recorded in any subsequent Supplementary Estimate.
The expenditure of £30,000 for Somaliland, £40,000 for Malta, £24,530 for Kenya, and £4,000 for Arabia is, the right hon. Gentleman tells us, due very largely to special causes arising out of that war. The frontier patrols had to be increased in Somaliland and elsewhere, and one can appreciate that special measures of some kind would have to be taken in any such circumstances by any Government, but what I am unable to understand is whether we employed special frontier patrolmen to assist Mussolini. From the smallness of the expenditure, I cannot understand how it could have been of real value as a safeguard to this country, for instance, and, although the sum that we are called upon to vote is only about £94,000 for these special measures, I recall that last year the Home Secretary said, speaking from that Box, that he would not endanger the life of one British soldier or one British ship for Abyssinia. Now the Colonial Secretary tells us that we sent more frontier patrolmen right on to the borderline of this war. It has often been said, and I suppose it is generally understood, that Ministers are entitled to say what they like, although they are all supposed to accept collective responsi-


bility for the decisions of the Government. The decision in this case apparently was to recruit more frontier patrolmen and to spend a goodly sum of money in order to send them right into the heart of the danger zone, and yet the Home Secretary said he would not risk the life of one British soldier. Perhaps the Colonial Secretary will tell us whether the Home Secretary was not expressing a purely personal opinion when speaking for the Government—in a Debate on a Vote of Censure, be it understood—or whether he was actually expressing just the mind of the Home Secretary and of no one else.
These sums are comparatively small, and they do not seem to me to represent any real defence or safeguard for the country. I recall the fact that the First Lord of the Admiralty, when he sent a letter to his constituents, after his resignation, informing his constituents that he, and presumably the Government for whom he spoke, were afraid that, if they applied oil sanctions to Italy, Italy might attack Malta or Egypt. There has been so much advancing and retreating that we do not quite understand where the Government are on this question. Certainly an expenditure of £94,000 could not help Abyssinia very much, it could not hinder Mussolini very much, and it was not a very big safeguard for the Empire. While one appreciates the desire to improve our defences at Malta, a most vulnerable spot from the point of view of Italy, £40,000 seems a very small sum compared with the very grave fear and anxiety expressed by the First Lord of the Admiralty.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The hon. Gentleman is, of course, aware that very large sums have already been voted for naval, military and Air Force purposes.

Mr. Williams: I quite appreciate that this is a Supplementary Estimate in the fullest sense, and is a matter of secondary consideration as compared with the first, but still this £40,000 is for providing gas masks, building hospitals and providing such accommodation as was necessary in case of an attack. If we were so afraid for Malta, this seems a very small preparation to make for safeguarding—

Earl Winterton: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman; I hope he will not think I desire to be personally discourteous

to him; but surely we cannot raise, on this Estimate, the whole question of the defence of Malta? This Estimate deals with certain measures for the protection of the civilian population, but the hon. Gentleman is dealing with the whole question of the defence of Malta. If he is going to make a speech on the whole Italo-Abyssinian question, others no doubt will want to reply.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir George Bowyer): I was just about to stop the hon. Member. While he is in order in just touching on that matter, he must not develop it.

Mr. Williams: I was only intending to touch upon it, and I have no objection to the Noble Lord raising the point. I do not want to enter into a general international Debate, and it was not my intention to do so. With reference to the taking of these preliminary precautions at Malta, I should like to know to what extent pressure from within Malta itself prompted the action of the Government in spending this £40,000. We know that there are very doubtful elements within the island, and they are not all of them remote from the Cathedral. We know that the Constitution of Malta is suspended because of interference in politics. I do not want to enter into a Debate on those lines, but only to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, when this fear dominated the mind of the First Lord, the international dangers had anything to do with his state of mind or with the expenditure of this £40,000, because we know what has happened quite recently in another part of Europe, where certain people in high office, nominees of His Majesty's Government, have endeavoured to participate in a civil war in another country. I should like to ask whether or not those internal dangers are constantly kept in mind by the Governor and the administration that has been set up there.
With regard to the expenditure on what they call special causes, we ought to know a little more about the steps that were taken when the increased frontier patrols were recruited, and exactly what their position was. Were they ever placed in danger, and, if so, why were they placed in danger after what the Home Secretary said? With regard to the question of Palestine, perhaps the


less one says in this Debate, in view of the sittings of the Royal Commission, the better. What we all desire to see there is that they should settle down to make the best of the position as rapidly as possible. This colossal expenditure of over £1,000,000, which is to become a burden upon the actual victims of the riotous conduct, is going to be a fairly hefty burden. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman said we shall put up the money in the first place and Palestine is going to repay it. That means that some part of the surplus that has accumulated, which ought to have been expended on, shall I say, education, the social services, improving transport and generally helping the country to develop on right lines, is to be diverted to meeting this liability.
It is going to be a grave punishment on the loyal people who never lifted a hand against the Government but all the time were more or less the victims of the conduct of a certain section. The money has been expended and I am not sure that the delay in dealing with the riot, or rebellion, has not increased out of all proportion the expenditure that might have been necessary to prevent an extension of the trouble. As is always the case, I know that those who inspired this unfortunate rebellion, the people at the top, will escape, and the rank and file will suffer indirectly through loss of the social services, educational institutions and the rest. I hope that that sort of thing is not going to be allowed to be repeated and that there will be no necessity for further expenditure on these lines.
I agree that Transjordan is a very poor country and, if the weather conditions are unfavourable, the inhabitants are very quickly in a parlous plight. It may be true that, as the mandatory country, we are obliged to go to their assistance and act when the necessity arises, but I should like to ask on what they base these loans at 4 per cent. Is it based upon the current value of money? Has it a relation to the Public Works Loans Board, or just how does it fit in? I am not objecting to these people borrowing at a reasonable rate of interest, but I should like to know, in view of the rates that are charged to some local authorities in this country. If we can provide cheap money for Transjordan, we might also

consider the advisability of providing cheap money for our own local authorities and Special Areas. Having touched upon one or two points relating to the amount of the expenditure I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us why these accounts are not to be submitted to the Comptroller and Auditor-General and whether it forms a precedent or not.
Secondly, who is responsible for this description, "Ethiopian dispute" instead of the plain, blunt truth, Italo-Ethiopian war? And will the right hon. Gentleman tell us further whether they sent British frontiersmen into the danger zone when they were increasing the numbers in Somaliland, in Kenya, or in Arabia? On the reply will determine whether or not the Home Secretary was strictly speaking the truth when he said he would not endanger the life of one British soldier for Abyssinia. That is all one wants to say unless satisfactory explanations are not forthcoming with regard to what might have been, in view of our known friendship towards Mussolini, a waste of £94,000. We shall await the right hon. Gentleman's reply before we decide whether to take this to a vote or not.

6.37 p.m.

Sir P. Harris: This Supplementary Estimate, which does not seem to cause very great interest in the House, is an example of our immense responsibilities and especially of the responsibilities of the right hon. Gentleman. Certainly it is a proof of our far-flung Empire. Here we have items dealing with Somaliland, Malta, Kenya, Palestine, and Transjordan. If evidence of the activities of the right hon. Gentleman's office are required, they are to be found in Item G, which shows that the original Estimate for telegrams on Colonial service oversea and telephone calls increased from £9,000 to £12,000. It shows that the holder of this great office cannot take his responsibilities lightly. He has always to be active, he constantly has difficult decisions to make, and on his efficient administration depends the well-being of millions of His Majesty's subjects of various race, religion, colour and location. The items of expenditure on Malta and Kenya and Somaliland arise out of the Italo-Abyssinian war. I have no doubt that the word "dispute" was put in by an official in accordance with the tradition always to use words in a Government


document of as little significance as possible and really to gloss over the importance of an item.
But I think the Committee would be shirking its responsibility if it did not refer to this very large sum that has been spent in Palestine. The fact that we have not to find the money ourselves does not lessen our responsibility. It would be out of order to refer to the Royal Commission and, even if it was not, it would be very undesirable to anticipate or in any way to embarrass its conclusions. Anyone who studies the literature that is circulated to us will realise how important it is to weigh one's words in speaking about this little country at the end of the Mediterranean. Phrases used and questions asked in this House are cabled there and appear in the local Press, often distorted, and some innocent remark is given excessive importance. It is not always realised that here in Committee we talk freely and frankly, not always in carefully prepared speeches. I shall be very careful, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will interrupt me if I have been indiscreet. It is very easy on the Floor of the House or in an arm-chair to criticise those who are responsible for administration. They have a most difficult and delicate task which requires the greatest judgment, tact and wisdom.
General Wauchope has been criticised by both sides. He has had to guide the country through one of those crises which only too often have happened since we undertook the responsibility of the Mandate. I believe he has endeavoured to hold the scales evenly between the two sides. If one has to find fault, I think perhaps it might be in the direction that he has shown excessive patience. On the great occasion when the trouble arose last April we know that the authorities had ample warning, through a small disturbance, some days before the first serious outbreak took place. What one wants to guard against is that the Government should be caught napping again. In April no steps were taken either to increase the number of the police or to provide them with arms.

Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. Can we discuss the whole Palestine administration on this Vote? I understand that there is nothing included in the Vote for the Police. I rise only because some of us will have something to say on the other side.

Sir P. Harris: I was only going to say that, if some of these troubles had been forestalled, it would not have been necessary to employ such large armies at a later date.

The Temporary Chairman: I am sure the hon. Baronet will confine himself to what he said he was going to do and will not go any further than that.

Mr. Stephen: Surely if all this money has been spent because the police have not been given the equipment that they should have been given, we are entitled to discuss that? It is nonsense to say that, because there is a general Vote for Palestine, we cannot discuss the question of the police. The police are concerned in this expenditure. The Debate should not be limited in this way. We should he able to talk of the things that have happened.

Earl Winterton: I do not say that I differ from the hon. Member but, if we are to have a Debate on the whole question, we should be told so.

The Temporary Chairman: This is quite clearly a Supplementary Estimate, and it is not in order to discuss what comes within the four corners of the original Estimate but only what is dealt with in the increased sum that is being asked for to-day.

Sir P. Harris: This is what we have to-day. Let us put ourselves into the position as though this money was being spent in this country to make provision for troops. Surely, we should be justified in saying that it was unnecessary to provide such a very large army involving the country in excessive expenditure, if the police were properly organised and equipped. Would we not have been justified in taking this line if it had applied to this country, and surely we are justified in doing so with regard to a country for which we are responsible?

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Baronet should be able, in a sentence or two, to make a point of that nature, but he should certainly not attempt to go into any details.

Sir P. Harris: I was really going to say—and I have very nearly finished—that the reason why our police were not armed and organised in a way to deal with this


outrage was because of the tradition which we have always had in this country of not arming our police. I impress upon the right hon. Gentleman and those responsible for the utilisation of troops, that it is far better, more economical and satisfactory for the permanent pacification of that country, to see that our police are properly equipped, organised and trained to deal with situations as they arise rather than having to call in the military. The charge, if there is a charge, is one of excessive patience on the part of the authorities. If they had not waited five months but had acted earlier in this very small country, if they had taken the advice of some people on the spot, it would not have been necessary to have sent this immense army. It was because they waited five months before taking vigorous action, that it was necessary to send such a very large force to restore order in the country.

Mr. E. J. Williams: Do I understand the hon. Baronet to mean that we should advocate the arming of the civil forces of the country?

Sir P. Harris: I do not go as far as to say that. All I say is that they should be organised and equipped.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Some of them are armed, but not all of them.

Sir P. Harris: The long delay gave time for the Arabs to organise, equip and make themselves a really dangerous force. It was not until 30th September that martial law was declared. [An HON. MEMBER: "It was not declared."] That makes the matter worse. Powers were taken to declare it, but they were not exercised. It had a very salutary effect. When the Army was brought into the country, it was done very thoroughly. It was a very big army—23 battalions—for the purpose of keeping order in a very small country, which is a little larger than Wales. I should like to pay tribute to the skill of the general in charge and to the English soldiers who did their work skilfully and with great forbearance. That much is due to them because British soldiers are always equal to any occasion and we can rely upon them to do their duty. Is it true, as I am informed, that the Arab bands are being allowed to retain their

arms? After all the trouble they caused, the large loss of life and the immense expense involved in Palestine, I am informed that there are still large bodies of Arabs, who are organised and equipped with arms, ammunition and power to spread devastation and trouble in that country. I have seen in the Press that there are still daily acts of murder and terrorism in Palestine. They are not directed so much against the Jews as against the more orderly element of the Arab population. A form of terrorism is still going on in Palestine among the Arab population who are peaceful, law-abiding and anxious to support authority and earn their living in a peaceful way.
I have been told—I hope that it is not true—that there is a possibility of renewed outbreaks once the orange season is over. That makes it more likely for a steady stream of illicitly imported arms over a more or less unguarded frontier. If that is true, it is really asking for trouble, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to satisfy not only the Jews, but the peaceful Arabs that a very strict control is being exercised on the frontier to stop the importation of arms. I am all for patience and tact. General Wauchope should be supported, as the man on the spot, in his desire to bring the two nations together to work in harmony and good will, but we must make it clear—the right hon. Gentleman cannot make it too clear not only to this Committee, but to the world—that force and violence will not be tolerated. The Jewish people went to Palestine more or less at the invitation of the British Government and under the auspices of the League of Nations, and we have, therefore, the responsibility to see that they should not be rendered liable to terrorism and to the horrors that undoubtedly took place in the early months of last year, when peacefully cultivating the land.

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Baronet should not go into the whole of the history of the matter.

Sir P. Harris: I will not say more, because the last thing I wish to do is to say anything that may stir up feeling.

Mr. Stephen: On a point of Order. I understood the hon. Baronet was referring to what happened last year, and are we not voting this money for purposes dealing with the events of last year?

The Temporary Chairman: We are dealing now with the Supplementary Estimate and not the original Estimate, and it is only in so far as hon. Members want to refer to the extra money now required that they can raise this matter in the Debate to-day.

Mr. Stephen: I understood the hon. Member to be pointing to the fact that people who were living there and were desirous of pursuing a peaceful life might find themselves being shot down, and that as a consequence all this money was being spent because of the weakness of the administration in dealing with that situation.

Sir P. Harris: The last thing I want to do is to dispute your Ruling, Sir George. I have made my point, and I do not want to over-emphasise it.

Mr. Crossley: It is extraordinarily difficult for some of us to keep silent after so many very tendentious remarks which have been put forward. With every desire not to raise any single question which touches upon the work of the Commission, I know that one very tendentious remark was made by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), and one or two of the remarks of the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), who is now in possession of the Committee, cannot be regarded as otherwise than tendentious, and I would ask him not to do this sort of thing.

The Temporary Chairman: Hon. Members will agree that nothing should be said which would interfere with, or might make more difficult, the work of the Coin-mission, and I am sure that all hon. Members will carry that out in any speeches they may make.

Sir P. Harris: I do not know what the hon. Member means by tendentious. I have never said anything that would be provocative to any law-abiding peaceful citizen in Palestine, whether Arab or Jew. All citizens living in Palestine, of whatever race and religion, should be allowed to live in peace and security. The right hon. Gentleman made it quite clear that it really is the excess of the cost which the troops would have entailed in this country if they had remained at Aldershot, the difference of transporting them to Palestine and maintaining them there. This is

a very big sum, and Palestine suffers as the right hon. Gentleman rightly points out in both ways. Firstly, these disorders mean a decrease in the revenue of the country, a loss of trade and of business, and, on the other hand, it may mean that much money which otherwise would be available to develop the country, improve education, roads and social amenities, is diverted to this miserable conflict and misuse of force. It is a tragedy in a country which, to all people in every part of the world and of every religion and race, is the Holy Land. I can only hope that under the wise administration of the right hon. Gentleman the Holy Land may at last become a land of peace.

6.57 p.m.

Earl Winterton: I apologise to you, Sir George, and to the Committee for raising some points of Order. I want to say very deliberately that I have had information from high official sources in Palestine, that one of the primary causes of the revolt last year was the one-sided attitude taken by the Committee of the House of Commons. I do not propose to comment upon that except to say that when my hon. Friend beside me took a certain line he was submitted to interruption which caused the Arabs to think that the whole Committee was against them. It would not be in order to discuss that matter, but I venture, with great respect, to say—I do not think that there is any personal feeling in this matter at all, and, indeed, I hope, no political feeling—that it would be deplorable if we had on this occasion a full debate on the subject of the Palestinian situation. I said in an interruption that if it were to take place we should claim to have some say, and we could keep the House sitting until midnight if we discussed the whole situation very fully with hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I warn this Committee most solemnly that they are playing with fire in a way that perhaps no Committee of the House of Commons have had to do since the time of the Irish trouble.

Mr. T. Williams: I am quite sure that the Noble Lord cannot direct one word of censure to hon. Members on this side of the Committee for any malice aforethought. We have refrained from uttering one sentence that would do so. The Debate or Debates last year actually took place after the outbreak of violence.

Earl Winterton: No, not before the main outbreak. I was not attacking the hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). I never attack him in these Debates, because I appreciate the balance of argument that he attempts to use. I object to only one thing he has said, and I must reply to it. I deny that this was an inspired revolt. It was something much worse, to refer to which would be out of order. He used the words "inspired revolt," and I wish categorically to deny that that is an accurate statement. In my opinion, based on some knowledge of the country—I am one of the few Members who has fought over every inch of it—I would say that the potential gravity of the situation in Palestine to-day, making allowance for the geographical difference of the two countries, is exactly equal to that of Ireland in 1919. For that reason the Vote is justified.

Colonel Wedgwood: On a point of Order. If this is in order surely we can go on? I can reply to the Noble Lord perfectly well if he is going to compare Palestine with Ireland.

The Temporary Chairman: I should have stopped the Noble Lord. I only wanted to hear the end of his sentence. I thought he was referring to it only in a sentence in passing.

Earl Winterton: I said for that reason the Vote was justified, and that is all I propose to say. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman was right to stop me from going any further. But that is the answer to those who object to the payment of this sum. There is another thing that is clearly in order, because it is referred to in the Supplementary Estimate, and that is the action of the right hon. Gentleman in causing the inhabitants of Palestine to have to pay the expenses for this extra number of troops. That is fully justified. People cannot have their cake and eat it. A country which is in a state of revolt must pay the price of that revolt, which is what this Supplementary Estimate is asking the Committee to sanction. I hope there will be no question of any attempt to tone down the financial burden in any way. It is proper that the financial burden should be borne by Palestine. It would be improper that the British Government, as well as having to find an additional large

Force, should also have to ask the taxpayers of this country to pay for this deplorable state of affairs. I think the general concensus of opinion in the Committee is that we should not discuss the whole matter until the report of the Royal Commission is out. The sooner it is out the better, and the sooner we can discuss the whole matter the better it will be.
I should like to break a lance on behalf of the Government with the hon. Member for Don Valley, though I always hesitate to attack him as he is so courteous a debater. But he was not fair to the Government on the money that was spent on necessary precautionary measures in countries contiguous to Ethiopia. Had it not been for the action taken by the Colonial Office, serious difficulties might have arisen between our own tribesmen and those on both sides of the border. I would like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on being able to say that it will not be necessary to have a Supplementary Estimate of this kind in future, because the Government have now come to an agreement with Italy in regard to frontier protection for two years. That is a satisfactory state of affairs. It would have been easy for the state of tension to have remained.
The only other question to which I would like to refer is Malta. I understand that this Estimate has nothing to do with the naval or military defence of Malta, but that all the Government are asking authority for is a sum of money to put the civilian population of Malta in such a position that, had the worst happened and there had been an outbreak of war in the Mediterranean, they would have been protected. Surely the hon. Gentleman does not object to the expenditure of that money?

Mr. T. Williams: Perhaps I was not clear enough, and I accept full responsibility for that. I felt it was remarkable that, if the danger were such as the First Lord of the Admiralty told his constituents, it appeared a weak-kneed policy to provide Malta with gas-masks and hospitals only instead of the real defence they were entitled to expect.

Earl Winterton: That is the whole point. You cannot discuss that on this Vote. If we had been discussing the whole defence of Malta, I would have been glad to reply to the hon. Member, but I think it well that the impression the


hon. Member created should be dissipated. The Colonial Office did all that was necessary for the defence of the civilian population against gas attack. The rest of the expenditure appears on the Naval or the Air Force Votes. As regards Transjordan, I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is making the grant he is doing. I hope it will be possible to avoid it in future, and I understand it is likely that that will be so if the harvests in the next year are better than they have been in the past. Transjordan has gone through a period of calamity owing to a terrible drought. Hon. Members would sympathise with those unfortunate Arab cultivators, who are miserably poor at the best of times, and will be glad that this small sum is being voted to assist the administration of that country. I am extremely glad that something is being done for Aden, which at one time was under four separate administrations and which now is, happily, under one.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: From 1st April.

Earl Winterton: Conditions under the previous administrations were a series of firsts of April. I have visited the place on two official occasions and it was like a comic opera. There was the Government of India, the Government of Bombay, the Colonial Office, the War Office and I think also the Air Ministry. I hope everything possible is being done to improve the accommodation there, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the need for making the amenities of the place as good as they can be.

7.10 p.m.

Colonel Wedgwood: I wish to take up a matter with the Noble Lord opposite. He warned us that the Debate in this House about nine months ago has been said by many of the officials of the Palestine Government to have been a cause of the troubles in Palestine. We have all heard that, but we have not heard it so loudly from the Arab source as we have from our officials in Palestine. I wonder whether those officials are not in a state of almost perpetual warfare with Parliament. It is their opposition to Parliament which is making the trouble.

Earl Winterton: I am sorry to have to play the same trick on the right hon. and gallant Member as he played on me, but I suggest that we are not now discussing the civilian administration of Palestine. There is nothing about it in the Vote.

The Temporary Chairman: I was allowing the right hon. and gallant Gentleman only just enough time to answer the Noble Lord.

Colonel Wedgwood: I want to explain why we have to be careful with free speech in this House. The sole useful purpose we serve in all these Colonial matters is that of expressing British public opinion to the people who are being governed, and to the Governors in those countries.

Earl Winterton: I am grateful to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for giving me the opportunity of making my point clear. The objection was not to the Debate but to the one-sided nature of the Debate. My hon. Friend beside me was interrupted, and it was said that it showed there was no friend of the Arab people in the House of Commons.

Colonel Wedgwood: I remember the Noble Lord saying to me how much he differed from me on nearly every point of view but what a useful thing it was that there was always one man in Parliament to stand up for any cause, however unpopular. We must express the public view of Great Britain to the natives of these countries, and the officials. If we were not here, and that was not done, the divergencies in policy between the Government and administrators in distant parts would be greater than they are now. We serve as a useful safety valve for all these questions.
I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Colonial Office still maintains the helpful old practice of charging every deficit on a Colonial budget, not as a grant-in-aid but as a loan to be recovered, and if so which of these items are classed as loans to be recovered and which are a dead loss? The second Malta Vote seems to be a little out of the ordinary. I am not certain what is meant by "non-Malta born Maltese destitute in Turkey."

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: They are technically British subjects.

Colonel Wedgwood: We have a Vote now for £15,000 for British subjects who lost their jobs in Turkey, because of laws passed in Turkey. May I ask whether the Colonial Office made representations to the Turkish Government before we were put to this heavy charge, which, I


gather, is an annual charge so long as these people are destitute? It is a considerable unemployment dole of £15,000 a year. Are they remaining permanently in Turkey, and, if so, are they permanently to be maintained by us? I understand that £15,000 is only half the amount, and that the other half comes from Malta. Therefore, we are paying £30,000 a year to servants of the Turkish Government, whether in trade or commerce, people who were thrown out of their jobs without pensions. Surely, this is the first time that that sort of thing has happened in the British Empire. It should be inquired into. Are we to maintain our Indian or African fellow-subjects if they lose their jobs in a foreign country?

Mr. E. J. Williams: Is it to be extended to this country?

Colonel Wedgwood: I gather that it is to be on the non-contributory basis. As far as the grants-in-aid to Kenya and British Somaliland are concerned, I understand that there is no dead loss to this country, but the money being voted now is being recouped by increased Customs revenue from those two countries. That means, I am afraid, that during the Italo-Abyssinian War a great deal of war stores were passing through British Somaliland, and I suppose going to the Italian Army.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I should like to remind the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that when Sanctions came in it was definitely declared and made public that munitions could go through British Somaliland to Abyssinia, and a certain number did, but no arms or munitions went to the Italians. The Sanctions and the embargo covered only certain categories of goods. Certain supplies did go through to both sides.

Colonel Wedgwood: I am afraid that the root of the evil was petrol going to the Italian Forces through British Somaliland. I hope that it was not so, but I should like to know whether we were clear of the charge of supplying those munitions to Italy.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: We are clear in regard to petrol, but not clear in regard to meat, flour and other things of that kind.

Colonel Wedgwood: Now I come to the Palestine Vote. My objection to the Vote of £1,084,000 is that the money has been wasted. I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether the military, when they got to Palestine, had the free hand that they expected and were intended to have in putting down the troubles in Palestine. I should like to know, further, what is General Dill's opinion of the use to which the Army was put in Palestine, and whether this money has been advantageously expended in order to produce such results? The right hon. Gentleman says that the troubles were over when the Army got there, and that martial law was not proclaimed because all is well.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I never said all is well.

Colonel Wedgwood: The right hon. Gentleman must have seen from day to day the accounts of the murders of Jews, the murder of the Mayor of Haifa, the continued murders in Haifa and elsewhere of Arab notables who refused to supply funds to the ruffians, and the regrettable persecutions and shootings of Christian Arabs, which means that we are apparently developing exactly the same spirit between Moslem and Christian Arab that we have seen in Iraq, which ended in the massacre of Assyrians in Iraq. When we see these developments and these threats we are, unhappily, conscious of the fact that more trouble is developing in Palestine.
Seeing that we are asked to vote this money in respect of the British Army in Palestine I should like to know whether the Army has now a free hand, and when will martial law be proclaimed? Have the military received orders never to fire unless they are first fired at? Has General Dill the powers necessary to suppress the disorder which has been going on in Palestine?

Mr. Crossley: Shall we be in Order in answering these arguments?

The Chairman: I was on the point of reminding the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that this is only a Supplementary Estimate, and that there are limits to the extent to which his arguments can go.

Colonel Wedgwood: It is a large Supplementary Estimate for £1,000,000 for one particular purpose.

The Chairman: It is not a new service.

Colonel Wedgwood: It is not a new service, but has the money been wasted or not? My contention is that it is money which has failed, whereas if the military had been given power in Palestine, order would have been restored with far less expenditure, and much earlier. Therefore, I feel bound to criticise this large total of expenditure. There is also the question of it being transferred to the Palestine funds. Fortunately for this country, Palestine had a balance of £6,000,000, but not so fortunate for Palestine. It was an accumulated balance extending over four or five years. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that this sum of £1,000,000 is the difference in the cost of maintaining these troops in Palestine and the cost of maintaining them in Aldershot. But some of these troops, if I am not mistaken, came from Egypt. Is it the difference between maintaining them in Egypt and maintaining them in Palestine, or between maintaining them in Palestine and maintaining them at home? Years ago the Egyptians paid the cost of the troops stationed in Egypt, but that has not been so for many years. The cost of the troops in Egypt is certainly larger than the cost at Aldershot, and the additional burden, in fact the whole burden, has been borne by the British taxpayer for the troops in Egypt. Now that these troops in Egypt have been removed to Palestine, does the taxpayer in this country reap the benefit of not having any longer to pay the increased charge that he paid before? Is this a case solely of extra expenditure involved to this country by the trouble in Palestine, or is it something more than that by what would otherwise be paid extra for the troops in Egypt? These points seem to me to be worthy of consideration.
I should like to say something about the Transjordan grant-in-aid. My hon. Friend and the Noble Lord agreed with the recommendation of this loan of £11,500 to Transjordan, and particularly that part which goes to provide seeds for the Transjordan fellaheen. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to consider this point. When I was in Palestine I was told that the seed was given to the landlord, who then supplied it to the tenant farmers, who are paid on the metayer system. The metayer cultivator pays one

half or one-third of his crop to the landlord, so that he gets no benefit whatever from the free seed. The seed was in that case in Palestine a gift to the landlords, and the demands of the landlords on the peasant were as heavy as ever. That seems to me not to be a fair way of dealing with what is a gift from this country. The gift should go to the people who need the seed, and not to the middlemen who farm out the land to people whose condition is almost that of serfs. I have nothing further to say. The main point about the Supplementary Estimate is that we ought to be assured that this sum of £1,000,000 has not been wasted, and that the work that it was intended to do will be done at the earliest possible moment.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. Crossley: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman asks whether the money we are now approving was wasted. When revolts break out in any part of the British Empire they have to be put down. This one was put down, and it was put down certainly with great moderation. I believe that no shot was fired by a British soldier in Palestine before shots were fired at British soldiers.

Colonel Wedgwood: Those were the orders, were they not?

Mr. Crossley: Those were the orders and that was the policy, and I think it is a policy highly worthy of our country. It shows our desire to make friends with the population of countries in which we are sometimes compelled to put down revolts. If the right hon. Gentleman does not think that the spending of this money on the British army in Palestine has gone some way towards that end, I should like to embark upon one very short but strictly relevant story, which shows how the British Army was appreciated by the Arabs. The day after the revolt was finally called off, after the strike was called off, three young British officers went out shooting partridges and took with them an escort of five private soldiers, with rifles. As a result of their day's shooting they got three partridges, and they were returning and descending a hill when they saw an armed Arab band. The armed Arab band saw them at the same time. There was no retreat, so the British soldiers took up a position and lay in wait to see what would happen. The Arab band steadily extended until they nearly surrounded them and then


started to close in upon them, but when they got within 100 yards one of the Arabs advanced, holding a white handkerchief, and said to the chief of the three officers, in English: "We understand that you are out shooting for pleasure; go in peace." I think that is a little testimony to the way in which the British Army were appreciated by the Arabs.

Colonel Wedgwood: Does the hon. Member think that that increased the Arab respect for the British Army?

Mr. Crossley: I do not think the British Army gains respect by adopting Prussian methods, which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman apparently likes. During all the time that the utmost bravery and determination were displayed by the British Army, at no period were they other than courteous to the natives. That is a fine tribute to the British Army, and is much more likely to bring about peace in Palestine.

7.31 p.m.

Mr. Cecil Wilson: I am not quite clear from the White Paper whether the increased revenue is due to the improved conditions in Somaliland. If it is, then it is a matter for congratulation that things are improving. I am not quite clear also whether the frontier patrols have been completely withdrawn. With regard to the greater part of this Vote we have to go further back than the Somali dispute or the Palestine dispute. This expenditure of money is the result of something that happened in the years gone by when we should have dealt with the causes which have led to this unsatisfactory and deplorable expenditure that we have now to consider. The reason why we are engaged in passing this Vote, as far as Ethiopia is concerned, is that we did not keep the promise we made to Italy—

The Chairman: The hon. Member will agree with me that that is clearly outside the scope of this Vote.

Mr. Wilson: We have to look ahead and see what the expenditure is likely to be in the future. Nothing that the right hon. Gentleman has said can lead us to believe that there is likely to be any diminution in the future.

The Chairman: I think the hon. Member will realise that on this Vote we

cannot deal with the future or with the past.

Mr. Wilson: If one cannot deal with the future or the past I do not know how we can deal with the present. The present depends on what has happened in the past and what is to happen in the present is going to have a very serious influence on the future.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. Stephen: I want to challenge the doctrine that when a Royal Commission has been appointed on any subject the questions which the Royal Commission have been asked to consider must be regarded as sub judice. I should never dream of accepting any such doctrine and, in fact, such a doctrine has never been observed. I say that with special reference to the fact that we are not supposed to comment on matters contained in the Supplementary Estimate because a Royal Commission is inquiring into the affairs of Palestine. I was in Palestine at the beginning of this year and I found on all hands a general criticism of the Government in this country in sending military forces to Palestine and of the way in which the whole situation was handled. There was the greatest resentment among both sides of the population at the way in which things had gone, and now the Government are adding to the difficulties of the situation by saying that the people of Palestine are to be responsible for all this expenditure of money. Nobody in Palestine believes that all the soldiers were sent out there in connection with the troubles which had arisen. They believed that it was a part of the Government's policy in connection with their general Imperialist interests. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that was the idea held in Palestine.
I should like to ask whether the administration in Palestine suggested to the Home Government that anything like this number of forces was required to deal with the trouble. Who was responsible for the estimate as to the number of troops which would be necessary? It may be that the administration in Palestine was responsible for the advice. We have heard from an hon. Member the doctrine that you must trust the man on the spot; and how wonderful the High Commissioner has been. As I listened to the hon. Member I wondered that there could be


any trouble in Palestine at all, when everybody was so anxious to do the best for everybody concerned. I gathered from the people in Palestine that this expenditure which we are being asked to vote to-day was quite unnecessary and that it was largely undertaken because the administration in Palestine had proved itself inefficient. We have also been warned as to the tension which exists there and the necessity of not saying anything which would create a difficult situation in Palestine. As a matter of fact, many things are being said. There is the evidence given to the Royal Commission and statements made by the Press which is circulating in Palestine.

The Chairman: The hon. Member cannot discuss the evidence given before the Royal Commission, because it has not been published yet.

Mr. Stephen: There have been Press statements published of the evidence which has been given before the Royal Commission, and I am only drawing attention to the fact that while there is this difficult and dangerous situation in Palestine a great deal of humbug is being uttered to the effect that you must not say anything, you must keep quiet, and not give expression to any views on the situation. That is how the trouble arose which has been responsible to a large extent for this expenditure of money. It is much better to get as much public attention drawn to what is happening in the country in order to make such expenditure unnecessary in the future. The general criticism in Palestine was that the trouble was due to the weakness of the administration. We had an evidence of the kind of administration there is in Palestine from the way in which my colleague the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) was refused an opportunity of expressing some views on the situation, largely by Government Departments and I think the Chief Secretary. If the way in which the broadcasts are handled is an illustration of the way in which government is carried on generally in Palestine, then I have no doubt that the feelings expressed to me by both Arabs and Jews were fully justified.
I am interested in the loan to the Government of Transjordan for Arab cultivators. I am in thorough sympathy with that money being voted, but I also found that some of the trouble which has led

to this expenditure of money and the sending of troops to Palestine was due to the way in which the Arab cultivators had been treated by the administration. There was a lack of consideration. All this money has been piling up and the Budget surplus should have been used to make things better for the Arab peasantry in Palestine. I am against the action of the Government in deciding beforehand that the people in Palestine were in the wrong. The question is whether the administration was not in the wrong. I do not know what the Royal Commission will report, but I think that the administration was more responsible for the situation which resulted in this expenditure than the people of Palestine, and if it was the consequence of the administration placed upon them by the Government in this country then the people of Palestine should not be called upon to pay the charges which are involved in this Vote. Unfortunately the Secretary of State has prejudged the case by deciding, by means of this Vote, to tell the people of Palestine that they are to be mulcted in millions of pounds in connection with the sending of soldiers to Palestine.
I believe that the administration largely contributed towards making the situation what it was. From what I have seen and heard in Palestine, I believe that the administration acted in the weakest possible fashion, and I protest now against the way in which the Government are throwing this charge upon the people of Palestine. If such Supplementary Estimates are to be made unnecessary in the future, the administration must spend the money of the people of Palestine in such a way as to make development possible for both sections of the community, in a manner in which they have not done in the past. There must be development of roads and Many other things. I shall welcome the opportunity, which I hope will arise at an early date when we have the full Estimates before us, of being able to deal with all questions of policy fully, for I believe that, although the Royal Commission is sitting, it is urgent that we should have an opportunity of discussing that policy in view of the possibility of there being worse troubles this year than last year.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I listened with astonishment to the remarks of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for


Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), because I remember that in the days of my youth, when I was beginning to turn to the fields of revolution, I used to hear of a great and energetic anarchist who was opposed to all authority—

Colonel Wedgwood: Especially Communist authority.

Mr. Gallacher: And now, behold the anarchist saying that there was not enough military power exerted against the Arabs in Palestine. Truly the world moves, and those within the world also move in very strange ways. I wish to take the greatest possible exception to the general accusations which have been made and which have suggested that this fine body of people, the Arabs, are murderers and blackguards. [Interruption.] That suggestion was made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, who was talking about murderers and so on.

The Chairman: I have not heard the whole of the Debate, but I have not heard that anybody said such things. In any case, the question does not arise on this Vote.

Mr. Gallacher: It has been said that they are ruffians and murderers, and I object to that. We are here dealing with a Supplementary Estimate which arises from the trouble in Palestine. The Arabs are not ruffians and bandits. An hon. Member opposite told a story that should have a lesson for all of us. If a body of Englishmen under the leadership of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme had had a small body of Arabs encircled, would they have said, "You are out shooting for pleasure; go in peace"? No, the Arabs would have gone in pieces. It is possible that, arising out of the troubles in Palestine, there may have been people who took advantage of the situation and played the part of ruffians. If we have a demonstration in Glasgow, and some trouble takes place in connection with it, there are always people having nothing to do with the demonstration who take advantage of the trouble in that way. The trouble in Palestine brought with it the necessity for the Arabian people to make a splendid demonstration and to fight to maintain their independence. That was the question at issue.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme said that maybe the money was wasted. I am positive it was wasted. I do not wish to go outside your Ruling, but I am sure you will permit me to say that if, instead of spending this money in the way in which it was spent, it had been spent in setting up a Legislative Assembly, there would have been no trouble in Palestine. Probably there will be more difficulties as the result of the situation there, but if it is a question of ruffians, I would recommend the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme to give his attention to Mr. Jabotinsky and his Fascist organisation, who are deliberately carrying on provocation. The Colonial Secretary cannot deny that. What is he going to do about it? I suggest that this money has been wasted, and that it could have been spent in a much better manner. I suggest to the Colonial Secretary that, in view of the fact that this is the Mother of Parliaments, a democratic institution, and that he claims to represent domocratic institutions, he should, in such cases, go to the limit in the use of democratic institutions before he brings in the bayonet and the bomb.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I will deal briefly with one or two of the points that have been made, without going into the wide questions of policy. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) asked a question about the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I can assure him that there is no innovation and no new practice, and that the insertion of this item arises merely from the fact that when money is voted as a grant-in-aid in such a case, it is accounted for and the auditing is done by the Director of Colonial Audit or the Auditor-General of Malta. It would be impossible to have to bring the whole of it to the Public Accounts Committee here. I assure the hon. Member that there is here no departure from a long-established practice. The hon. Member also referred to the words "dispute" and "war." I admit that I was responsible for both words. We all know that these people were not sent to help Mussolini or to help Abyssinia, but quite frankly they were sent to prevent our nomadic tribes in Somaliland and on the Northern frontier of Kenya from getting into trouble. When there is a war in an adjoining territory,


one has to take steps to protect oneself, particularly in that sort of country. We took these steps entirely in the interests of our own tribes and in our desire to prevent incidents which might have led to trouble taking place.
I am glad my Noble Friend alluded to the fact that during the last few weeks the Chief Secretary for British Somaliland, accompanied by an official of my Department, has been to Rome and that they have fixed up, for two years, an amicable agreement in regard to the Southern frontier of British Somaliland concerning the grazing rights and rights to visit wells inside what is now Italian occupied territory. I hope this will lead to less tension on the frontier. In the past it has been the practice of the Somalis both on the Abyssinian and Italian side of the frontier on the one hand and ours on the other hand to cross the frontier at different times of the year for grazing and so on. There has been frequent danger of incidents, but I hope the position will now be altered. I will give a case to show why it is necessary to do these things even when we are not actually engaged in a dispute. I was talking to the Swiss representative on the Permanent Mandates Commission in Geneva, and learned that, although Switzerland was neutral in the Great War, he was called up as an officer to serve on the Swiss-German frontier to defend the integrity and neutrality of his country. That is an inevitable consequence of war in any part of the world.
I have been asked what was done to defend the civilian population in Malta during the Italo-Abyssinian dispute. Large sums of money have already been voted in order to send some of our newest and best anti-aircraft guns to defend Malta, and an increased number of submarines was sent. The hon. Gentleman opposite, in the course of his remarks, made a reference which, I think, is entirely out of proportion, and which I will correct now because it may do a great deal of harm to our whole position in Malta and to the attitude of the overwhelming majority of Maltese towards him and the House if it is not put straight. The Maltese are, practically without exception, devout Roman Catholics.

Colonel Wedgwood: They are not clericals.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No, but they are devout Roman Catholics. The Roman

Catholic Church is the established Church in Malta just as the Presbyterian Church is in Scotland, and the Anglican Church in England. Malta is the one place in the Empire where the Roman Catholic Church is the established church. When the hon. Gentleman talks about the Italian clergy being nominees of the British Government, and says that because the Roman Catholic Church is established in Malta the British Government become responsible for everything that every Maltese bishop or dean says, it is fantastic; and I think it would do a great deal of harm to Parliament if the hon. Gentleman took up the line of argument that it is up to me or the British Government to make promises one way or the other because the Roman Catholic Church is established in Malta and to that extent the ecclesiastical dignities there are nominees of the British Government. May I give this example? The Bishop of Birmingham, Dr. Barnes, is a nominee of the Crown in the See of Birmingham. I periodically read his sermons and his speeches, and I do not think I ever agree with his theology, his politics or his science, and I do not think he ever opens his mouth without my violently disagreeing with him.

Mr. Maxton: That is an attack on a public servant.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Although I think that personally, I do not think it is proper and right that, as a Member of the Government, I should give expression to that view. Therefore, I appeal to the hon. Gentleman not to adopt that line of argument, because I do not think it will have the effect in Malta, which I am sure he wants to have, namely, of maintaining the loyalty of the vast mass of the Maltese people to the British Government.

Mr. T. Williams: I readily respond to the right hon. Gentleman's statement. Personally, I have no animosity to the established religion in Malta, Quebec or Timbuctoo. The reference I made, however, was only to the action of the leaders of the Church when they deliberately set out to support a Government directly contrary to the expressed policy of His Majesty's Government. Beyond that I do not intend to go, and I hope I did not go in the observations I made.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The hon. Gentleman referred to it again in connection with the defence of Malta, and I am sure that,


if the inference he wished to draw was that I ought to have said something against the Bishops and Clergy of their own church in Malta it would have been most unfortunate and unhelpful to the general situation.

Mr. Gallacher: It may be necessary.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: It is essential that the position of the ecclesiastics in these churches should be made clear and that it should be understood that I cannot take responsibility for what they say as ecclesiastics.

Mr. Maxton: Do I understand that the Colonial Secretary is entitled to condemn the Bishop of Birmingham and not the Bishop of Malta?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No, I say that I am not entitled to condemn him as representing the Government; I am not entitled to interfere with him or the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Mr. T. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman must agree that there is a vast difference between a sermon or a speech delivered by the Bishop of Birmingham, or any other bishop in this country, and the leaders of the Church in Malta organising the whole island for a day of prayer and using that incident to send a telegram to a participant in a rebellion in another country.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I will not pursue it, but I want to assure the hon. Gentleman that the religious susceptibilities of people in a varied Empire with different creeds and races must not be challenged in this House; and because a church is established, it is no reason why the Minister in charge of the Colonies or the Dominions should be held responsible, as the hon. Gentleman tried to hold me responsible, for something which an established church clergyman says or does not say.
I thank the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) for his personal references to me. I do, I think, go round the map every morning in dealing with a great variety of human beings and a multiplicity of problems. I thank him for what he said about the wisdom of restraining our language in this House on the subject of our policy in Palestine until we have had the report of Lord Peel's Commission. I have

realised, ever since I set up that Commission, that until it has reported I cannot begin to make up my mind as to the policy that should be pursued in Palestine because the Commission was asked to go into the underlying causes. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) has his views as to the weaknesses of the administration. I wish to know the views of the Royal Commission, and I wish to hear their comments on the situation. The hon. Member for West. Fife (Mr. Gallacher) asked why we did not have a legislative council. I was not Colonial Secretary at the time of the Debate on Palestine before the disturbances broke out, but I understand that it largely turned on the question of a legislative council, and nobody in the House in any part would have it, and no one was more strong against it than the party opposite. That being so, it is hardly fair for the hon. Gentleman to charge me, when he did not support the legislative council on that occasion—

Mr. Gallacher: I am not holding the Minister responsible. I am asking whether he does not agree that this £1,000,000 could have been better spent on setting up a legislative assembly than on the military.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: This money had to be spent, and was quite rightly spent, after the disturbances had broken out with a view to bringing them to an end, and I entirely disagree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme that the money was wasted and that the sending of the troops was wasted. He seems to have at the back of his mind that it is wasting money on troops unless they kill a lot of people.

Colonel Wedgwood: I do not think that the troops are wasted unless they kill a lot of people, but I think they are wasted unless they can achieve what they were sent out for, that is, to stop the riots and the trouble.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Before that division went to Palestine, there was a universal Arab strike, a refusal to acknowledge and to co-operate in any way with the British Government, and attacks on Jewish settlements, transport, railways and telegraphs. That sort of thing was going on and increasing seriously. On 12th October it stopped. The strike


ceased, transport began again. I do not say that all crime stopped, but there has been far less of it. There has been co-operation with the Commission, which was able to proceed to Palestine to hear the evidence. No doubt we shall see that evidence in due course. I have not seen it yet, but only what the newspaper reports have published. I say that the sending of the troops was abundantly worth while because it did that. I will definitely state with full authority, in reply to the hon. Member for Camlachie, that we had no ulterior motive in sending the troops. Why we should have had an ulterior motive, I cannot think. They went in September, the last of them arriving in the last few days of September, and the bulk of them got back by Christmas.

Colonel Wedgwood: Were they asked for?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Yes, but let me be strictly accurate and straight with the Committee; they were not asked for in quite such large numbers. I take full responsibility for sending a complete division to act and work as a whole, after consultation with the General Staff here. We had a discussion with the General Staff, and as there was a martial law Order in Council ready, it was felt that if we were to have full martial law and the partial setting aside of civil administration in Palestine, it was desirable and necessary to have a division to deal with the situation.

Earl Winterton: There is a constitutional point of great importance here, and my right hon. Friend inadvertently may have said something that will be criticised in Palestine. He said "I took full responsibility." Surely only the Cabinet could take responsibility for action of this kind?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I wanted to make clear that the responsibility was not on the Palestine administration, but on the Government here, and I was speaking on behalf of the Government. Of course, it was a Government decision and it was well known in Palestine that it was a Government decision. My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) drew attention to a point in my opening remarks in regard to Aden. From 1st April this year Aden becomes a colony and is transferred from the

Government of India. This Supplementary Estimate is for improved accommodation for the British personnel in Aden who will have to administer not only the colony, but the sphere of influence in the neighbourhood.

Sir P. Harris: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to deal with my question whether the Arabs have been allowed to retain their arms?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: There are a great many arms illicitly held by both Arabs and Jews in different parts of Palestine. Efforts to control the inflow of arms last year failed, and we know that hidden here, there and everywhere in Palestine are large numbers of arms and considerable amounts of ammunition. That is why we are continuing to keep considerable Forces in Palestine. We cannot be sure that there will not be further outbreaks. That these arms have been coming in for some time—not so intensively last year, but for some time before—is known to us, and it is impossible to get them short of adopting very difficult and drastic measures in collecting them. It is extremely difficult to get rifles which are hidden away in villages. It is not a case of armed bands possessing rifles. We had armed bands, of course, particularly from outside Palestine, but the problem now is the very large number of arms in the possession of the civilian population generally, and that has been the case since the War. A very large number of the rifles which were captured were old British and Turkish rifles, and there were a good many French rifles which came through from the Hauran at the time when the French had their difficulties at Damascus. That is the problem with which we are faced. In Palestine you are not dealing with a normal democratic country, but with a country in which there are two great historic races, with all the feelings which they have inherited from the past and as my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham pointed out, a situation of very serious racial and religious tension.

Colonel Wedgwood: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the number of arms held both by Arabs and Jews. Does he really compare the position of the holding of arms by people who only use them and only could use them in defence, with the position of people who use them to commit murder?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I shall not at this time attempt to answer so unwise a question. It could do nothing but harm if I attempted to answer such a question. All I say is that, according to the law, no citizen in Palestine unless he is authorised by the Government ought to be in possession of arms. A considerable number of arms are held on both sides, and I leave it at that. I think I have covered all the points of substance which have been raised, except possibly that relating to the loan of the Transjordan Government. Owing to a series of crop failures, in the winter of 1935–36 in Transjordan it has been necessary, in order to prevent destitution among certain cultivators of land, to lend them money to purchase fresh seed. The loan is administered entirely through the Transjordan Agricultural Bank which is under the supervision of the Government. A previous loan of this kind was made in 1933 and 1934, and has been entirely repaid, and we have no reason to anticipate that the present loan will not be repaid quite soon to the Government.

Colonel Wedgwood: By the landlords or by the cultivators?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: By the cultivators. I have no knowledge that the métayer system which exists on some Arab lands in Palestine obtains among these cultivators in Transjordan but I will make inquiries. As far as we can gather the agricultural bank there operates rather on the lines on which the agricultural bank in Egypt used to operate, and deals directly with the cultivators.

Earl Winterton: Is it not communal cultivation there? I am sure hon. Members opposite would not object to communal cultivation, that is, cultivation by the whole tribe.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: In what I may call the outlying districts which are tribal, that is so, but round about El Hasa and in the Jordan Valley are settled peasant cultivators who are no longer tribal. I would not like to generalise or to say that they are not being assisted as well as the tribal cultivators. I think I have now covered all the points which hon. Members raised.

Colonel Wedgwood: What about the Maltese?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: As I said, the Turkish law was only passed in 1934, and came into operation at the end of 1935, and it is hoped that this is purely a temporary problem and that it may be possible to get these Maltese out of Asia Minor and settled elsewhere. I agree that the action of the Turkish Government was not directed against the Maltese, but rather against all and sundry. They passed a law requiring that all the people in certain professions or occupations should be Turkish subjects. I think I remember that at the time considerable protests were made, but the Turkish Government were entitled in the exercise of full sovereignty in their own country to pass such a law, and they did pass that law, and we have to follow it.

Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £106,520, be granted for the said Service," put, and negatived.

Question,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £106,620, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for sundry Colonial and Middle Eastern Services under His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain Non-effective Services and Grants in Aid.
put, and agreed to.

CLASS VI.

BOARD OF TRADE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade, and Subordinate Departments, including certain services arising out of the War.

8.23 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Dr. Burgin): The Committee may like some explanation of this Vote. The total original net Estimate for the Board of Trade was for £259,940 and the revised Estimate is for £263,940. The additional sum required by way of Supplementary grant is £4,000, and that sum arises as follows: There is an estimated deficiency in Appropriations-in-Aid of £8,000, and a saving in gross estimated expenditure of £4,000, leaving a net sum of £4,000. The Committee


will see that it has been necessary to increase certain staffs, and not unnaturally the work connected with trade agreements has involved extra expenditure. The expenditure will be found on page 11 of the Estimates under the following heads: Commercial Relations and Treaties Department, £3,700; General Department, particularly in dealing with questions of agricultural policy, £500; and Sea Transport Department, £1,100. There is also an item of £1,100 for overtime, which on a staff of 700 is not very much.
Then there is the Food (Defence Plans) Department, £6,200, and as this matter comes before the Committee for the first time to-night, perhaps a word or two about that Department might be welcome. The main function of the Department is to prepare in advance plans for food control which could be put into operation by the Board of Trade, if the Government so decided, on the outbreak of war, and by a Ministry of Food if and when that was constituted. The Department is not directly concerned with home agricultural production—agricultural policy is a matter for the Ministry of Agriculture—but this Department, the Food Defence Plans Department, will co-ordinate its work with the Ministry of Agriculture. The Department has been entrusted with the preparation of the plans for the setting up of a Ministry of Food and the necessary local organisations. Rationing could only be effected as part of a general scheme of food control. The Department is therefore engaged in framing machinery for controlling the wholesale distribution of home-produced and imported supplies of each important commodity. Those plans are being prepared in consultation with the trading organisations and statutory bodies such as marketing boards, covering producers at home, importers, wholesalers and retailers.
The main purpose of food control is to secure that whenever there might be scarcity, all classes of the community receive their proper share, and control of prices is an essential element. The work has a close bearing on the work of other Departments, such as the Air Raid Precautions Department of the Home Office and the Ministry of Transport. The Department therefore works in co-operation with those Departments. The Department reports, through the President of the Board of Trade, to the appropriate

committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence. The items of increased expenditure, which are at the top of page 11, amount to £12,600. There are then certain savings which are set out, and I do not think it is necessary, unless the Committee so desire, that I should go through those savings, which are on pages 9 and 10 and amount to £16,600. They are savings by reason of contingencies that were budgeted for not having occurred. The result is that there is a necessity for a Supplemental Vote of £4,000 under this heading, and I hope the Committee will give me the Vote accordingly.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
The Parliamentary Secretary has furnished very little information to the Committee on what we regard as the main item under this Vote. I refer to the item on page 11 relating to the staff of the Food Defence Plans Department, which was recently set up by the Government. We raise no objection to the amount involved, namely, £6,200. That may in fact be a quite inadequate amount, for this Department, having regard to the Government's armaments policy, is one of the most important of all. Therefore, in our judgment the Department is not being regarded with the seriousness which it deserves. There was a speech delivered in this House on Thursday last by the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence which was a very important utterance. In the course of that speech, the Minister said something about food supplies in time of war—not a great deal, but the matter was referred to. He said:
I would like to say a word about two other topics. One is the question of food. Naturally this is a question of interest to the public, as indeed it is to the Government. Control and rationing have been prepared for, but I am aware that those are blank cheques, and that the question is, Where are the asset, where is the food? The Government are conscious that rationing is at most a second best. Storage has excited public interest, but if anybody gives a moment's reflection to that, he will see that the very purpose of any plan would be defeated by a premature disclosure of the steps which the Government are hound to take."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1937; col. 1427; Vol. 320.]
It may be unwise in the public interest to disclose the whereabouts of food storage in time of war, but, on the other hand, it is extremely wise to acquaint the


public with the steps which the Government propose to take in respect of food supplies. In short, the public are entitled to know whether the Government are competent to deal with food supplies in time of war, and on that head, a very important matter for the public, we have no information whatever. It is all very well to increase armaments. I say nothing about the Government's defence plans, because this is not the appropriate occasion, but no matter how huge your armaments may be, unless there is an adequate food supply your armaments are of little value. It is the essence of defence, at all events from the standpoint of the general public. There is very little information in this Estimate as to the amount required for the purposes of this Department over an extended period. I presume—the Parliamentary Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—that the amount mentioned, £6,200, is for a limited period. Is it possible to obtain any information as to the amount required for a full year? Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will address himself later to that question.
The hon. Gentleman said something about the control of prices. I presume that if war broke out—and I suppose that the Government have made up their minds that war is likely; at all events, they are making what they regard as adequate preparations, and it is only a question of time—there would be a rationing scheme. What is to be the method of price control under such a scheme; or are we to understand that when the Parliamentary Secretary speaks of price control, it is merely a phrase and no more? It is easy to speak of price control, but it is much more difficult to apply it, and certainly there can be no measure of price control unless there is an adequate measure of public control over food supplies.
Furthermore, I hazard a guess that the Government will find themselves unable, without effective public control, to check profiteering. We all know what happened during the last War. Prices rose sharply and steeply, to the disadvantage of the public, and all the measures applied by the Government were ineffective. Public opinion will not tolerate profiteers in the next war. The question of prices is closely related to that of supplies. If

there is a shortage of food supplies without any adequate measure of control, prices are bound to rise. That is an economic fact to which no objection can be taken.
As this is the first time this matter has been mentioned in Parliament, will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what measures the Government have in contemplation. The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head negatively. Are we to understand that we are not to receive information, that we are merely asked to present the Government with this money without putting questions or receiving satisfactory answers? I am sure that no Member on this side of the Committee is prepared to allow the Government to get away with that. What we say, we say in the public interest. The Government are entitled to say that they cannot disclose all the details, but some amount of information is necessary to reassure the public mind. From that position we shall not recede. It is presumed that the Food Defence Plans Committee, over which, I believe, Sir William Beveridge presides, will take steps to consult local opinion and to establish local machinery. It is obvious that too much centralisation would be unwise, but if there is to be local machinery is the expenditure on it to be included in this Estimate? May I ask whether any consultations with local authorities have already taken place; if so, with what effect, and if not, why not? I have no doubt the Parliamentary Secretary will be glad to furnish the Committee with such information as is at his disposal.
Further, if some kind of local organisation is established will it include representatives of consumers and workers? It is highly desirable that consumers should be represented, and when I speak of consumers I mean organised consumers. The Parliamentary Secretary has anticipated what I was about to say. He murmered "The Co-op." May I amplify what he said? I mean the co-operative movement, a very worthy movement, one of great importance in our national economy. Surely the vast experience of that movement in matters relating to food supply ought to be utilised by the Government as regards this important aspect of Defence. I heard the Parliamentary Secretary say something about the Food Defence Plans Committee reporting to the


Committee of Imperial Defence, but I was not clear of their precise relationship. Obviously there ought to be a relationship. This fundamental aspect of national Defence ought to be constantly present to the minds of the Committee of Imperial Defence. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will emphasise what he said and indicate the precise amount of co-ordination that exists between that committee and the Committee for Imperial Defence.
In this connection I have two questions to put to the hon. Gentleman. One is whether proper consideration has yet been given to the dangers from aerial warfare to reserve stocks of food; and that brings me to the question of vulnerability. What steps have the Government in contemplation for the erection of food storage plants? For example, there is a considerable number of wheat granaries in the country, but they are principally, I believe, on the East Coast, where vulnerability is pronounced. I suggest that the Government, if they have not already done so, ought to give full consideration to that important question; and allied with it is the question of cold storage plants. Despite the valiant and magnificent efforts of the Minister of Agriculture, whom I see present, We are dependent on imports for the bulk of our meat supplies, and we are entitled to know whether the Government have thought out that question, and have plans in contemplation for the import of meat supplies, a matter on which I shall say a word before I sit down, and in particular their storage in places not so vulnerable as the East Coast. Further, what steps are being taken to provide alternative and adequate accommodation in less dangerous parts of the country, having regard to the very dread prospect of aerial warfare? I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will not regard these questions as injudicious. They seem to us to be very germane to this important Debate.

Dr. Burgin: I do not regard any of the hon. Member's questions as injudicious, but I think a great many of them are completely premature. What the Committee have before them is a Supplementary Estimate dealing with a new Department created somewhere in December of last year, and for a period from December until the end of the financial year, roughly, about four months. The £6,200 is the figure of expenditure for staff,

divided among 66 people in different ways. The questions of policy, to which the hon. Member is directing his attention, are all very proper questions, but they are premature and do not arise on this Estimate.

Mr. Shinwell: I was very glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say that my questions were not injudicious, but I cannot agree with him that they are premature. The Government came before us on this matter last week, and asked us to grant a loan of £400,000,000, which was only a part of the huge expenditure upon armaments, and to some extent they disclosed their plans. Questions on the subject were not then regarded as premature. Surely it is not premature to ask questions on what is a most important aspect of our Defence plans. I repeat that all your munitions are of little avail unless you can feed your people. The Government ought to have applied themselves much sooner to this matter, and if we can do anything to induce them to give the matter more consideration we shall do it.
Our food imports and food supplies are closely related to our Defence, and I should say more's the pity. We have, however, to deal with the existing situation, which will not change radically before the next war. Are the Government conducting any negotiations with foreign countries as regards food supplies in time of war? I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to acquaint the Committee with the details as to countries with whom negotiations are proceeding, but to make a general statement on the matter. It seems to me that the question of where our food supplies are to come from is of primary importance. The situation in the next war, when it comes, may be very different from what it was in the last war, when we received much of our food supplies—meat and wheat and the like—from Dominion countries, in particular Australia and New Zealand. The situation was then more favourable, because the food ships were convoyed by Japanese warships, but we are not likely to receive such assistance in the next war; at all events, it does not appear likely. Our food supplies from the Antipodes may; therefore, be shut off. I hope not, but I merely put the point to the Parliamentary Secretary. As for India, we can expect nothing from that quarter because of the difficult route which has to be traversed. There are difficulties in the Mediterranean, and even round the Cape.
We may be left with two possibilities, apart from further production in our own country, one being Argentina, and the other Canada. I say nothing about Canada, because it does not seem to present any difficulty, but what is the Government's attitude about future supplies from Argentina? We sometimes detect on the opposite benches objections to imports from Argentina. Where do the Government stand? Are they for Argentine food supplies or against them, or are they in favour of some limitation? They had better make up their minds, because we shall be dependent to a considerable extent upon Argentina. I think it was Mr. Lloyd George—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]—I am reminded that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) is so seldom here that we are disposed to use his name as though he were no longer a Member of this House—who said on one occasion that the Allies won the War largely because of Argentine meat and wheat. I suppose that he was right. How much more likely is it that Argentine meat and wheat will be required in the next war in order to save the population of this country? We are entitled to information on this point. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not imagine that I have raised it in a frivolous frame of mind; by no means. I hope that he will have something to say about it.
Finally, would the Parliamentary Secretary say something about transport facilities of food supplies across the country from vulnerable points to points less vulnerable? It will be interesting to know what the Government have been doing in that connection. While we do not take exception to the amount asked for, but, on the contrary, believe that it may be far from adequate, having regard to the possible needs of the nation, we ought to be reassured, in order to prepare the public mind for any possible contingency. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be good enough to furnish the required information.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. Ede: In the first place, I want to inquire why the different Departments of the Government regard the filibustering expedition in Abyssinia in different lights. I notice that, on page 11, the Board of Trade refer to "the Italo-Ethiopian crisis in the Mediterranean," whereas on pages

6, 7 and 8, the Colonial Office allude to "the Italo-Ethiopian dispute." There is the famous story of the Cabinet Minister calling upstairs to his colleagues as they were coming down: "What have we decided? It does not matter much what we say, so long as we all say the same thing." It seems as though the various Departments have not quite made up their minds about what happened in Ethiopia last year. They should at least have some uniformity. We know that the Government were born in a crisis and that they drift from one crisis to another. The sooner they go out, we hope in a final crisis, the better for this country and for the world.
I should like to ask the Minister for a little further information with regard to some of the points which were dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell). I gather that these figures for staff relate to an expenditure for three months, when the staff was not fully organised all the time. It started in a small way, and has gradually been filled up. Therefore, I take it that, if we multiply this figure by four, we shall not be very far off the annual cost as the Department is at present constituting. That seems to indicate that, if there are 66 people, as is set out here, their average annual salary is about £375 or £376.
Can we be told what is the calibre of the person at the head of this staff, what salary he is receiving, and what his position was before he took up this post, so that we may have some indication of the standing of this branch of the Department with regard to the other Departments? Can we be told whether any of these people have been seconded for this purpose, and, if so, how many; how many are new personnel; how many are temporary, and how many are on the established staff—I do not mean necessarily the exact number, but the kind of proportion? Is it proposed that this should be a permanent branch of the Department, carrying on until the crisis for which it is a preparation has arrived; and, if there are any people from outside, can we be given some indication of the kind of previous experience they have had? It seems to me that to put down, for a first discussion on this matter, the kind of note that we have here, with no further explanation from the Minister, is hardly treating the Committee with proper respect, because obviously this is


a matter of the utmost importance to the country, and one in which the country will be vitally interested.
I also want to follow up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham with regard to the position of the stores in which grain, it is proposed, will be kept. I believe that the best mark for aircraft on Southampton Water is the huge flour mill that stands there at the present time. I suppose it is a gamble whether that or the corporation's electricity works is the better landmark for aircraft, and each of them, after all, will be vitally concerned with carrying on the work of the country in the event of hostilities. Are any efforts being made to place grain elsewhere than at the great ports in these great granaries? One gathers as one goes about the country that nearly all the small village and town mills have been done away with, and in the event of hostilities, and possibly the interruption of rail and road communication, it might be very difficult to shift grain or flour from these large granaries at the ports, even if they escape destruction, to the inland population, especially to some of those industrial districts which must be very vitally concerned with the carrying on of munition works during war.
What is the relation between this Department of the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Agriculture? I noticed that the Minister of Agriculture was here a short time ago, and I was hoping that perhaps we should be favoured with a few remarks from him on this topic especially, as I noticed that the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Major Dorman-Smith), on behalf of the National Farmers' Union, was carefully watching his movements on the Front Bench, possibly also hoping to hear something of the same sort. I hardly think that the hon. and gallant Member and the Minister would be wasting their time listening to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade telling us nothing in his usual bland way; they were quite obviously here because they were interested in the subject, and not in his remarks.
This is one of those Estimates which needs more explanation than we have had to-day. The Parliamentary Secretary used one phrase which I hope he will be able to explain at considerably greater

length when he replies. He said that among the matters that were being investigated was the ensuring for all classes of the community of their proper share of the foodstuffs. I hope he will be able to tell us what is the proper share of each class of the community. Is there any difference between the proper share in peace time and the proper share in war time? I hope the Minister recognises that the working classes of this country never, as far as I can recollect, complained about the rationing scheme in the last War, because then at any rate they did get the same share per person as other people. Is that what the hon. Gentleman means is to happen in the next war, and, if so, why cannot this same Department be used for securing the same thing in time of peace? Why cannot it have a little practice, so that, when war breaks out, it Will be merely carrying on the good example that it has managed to create in peace time? I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recognise that, particularly in his phrase which I have mentioned, he gave an indication that it is essential that this matter should be further elaborated before the Committee could agree to part with it tonight. I can only express the hope that it will be recognised, as I believe it was during the last War, that the people who are prepared to work are the people who at least should be first secured in their food. I recollect that one morning, when a large number of German prisoners had been captured, and the bread—

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Robert Young): I must ask the hon. Member to keep to the question of the staff.

Mr. Ede: This deals entirely with the staff. It is about on orderly corporal. The orderly corporal was issuing out the bread ration to the privates, and one man had his piece in his hand, but he refused to move on. At last the orderly corporal said to him, "You have got your ration; why don't you move on?" The man replied, "You call this a ration, corporal; I thought it was Holy Communion" At the present time the staff work of the Department is so bad that the privates in industry quite frequently find themselves in that position in peace time. I can only hope that this staff will so devise their scheme during peace time that, when it cames to war, the people will feel that they can trust the Department,


because it has been able to prove that it can deal with this problem of sharing out for all classes of the community the foodstuffs that are available.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: The Minister will, perhaps, have gathered by now that we consider by far the most important item in the Supplementary Estimate before us to be this amount dealing with the food Defence plans. I was sorry to hear him attempting to belittle its importance by pointing out how small the amount was, with a view to restricting the scope of the Debate on the subject; but, however small the amount, I think it is necessary for the Committee to recognise that it is symbolical of a very important principle in national Defence; and, as it is quite impossible to separate the staff of this Food Defence Plans Department from the work which they will have to carry out, I think the Committee is entitled to obtain some information from the Minister as to the scope and adequacy of the food Defence plans in time of war.
I deplore the growing tendency on the Front Bench to make a great secret about everything that is put forward in connection with Defence. They have only to mention the word "Defence" to give themselves an excuse for not giving the House of Commons information to which it is entitled. We had an example the other day where, in the case of a contract for some kind of armaments, the Minister refused to tell us the price, because he said the competitors of the tendering firm would know it and it would assist them in the future. In a case like that it is obvious that the competitors and the rivals always know, and the only people who are not to know are the House of Commons. I have a quotation which would not be relevant to this Debate, but I will give it on the first occasion when it will be relevant. A tender for steel for the London County Council was submitted by 15 firms and every one of them tendered the same amount to the last penny, though it was over £40,000. I give that merely to show that this tendency to secrecy which is developing on the Treasury Bench is not conducive to the public interest and has, in fact, no foundation, and I propose to apply that criticism to the reluctance of the Minister to give us the information that we wish for this evening.
It is impossible to set up even the framework of machinery for dealing with food supplies until you know the scale and the principle upon which you are going to control those supplies. If you are merely going to have the half-hearted, piecemeal, progressive control which was established during the last War you will want a very different kind of machinery from what you will require if you are going to establish security of all food supplies and food production in the next war. It has been acknowledged by speakers on the other side that the moment we find ourselves engaged in a new war there will be not only conscription of the manhood of the nation, but conscription of the industrial force of the nation as well, and if the Minister still nurses any doubt about the establishment of that principle, I can assure him now that he will never carry the nation and all his colleagues unified into another war until that principle of the conscription of industry and wealth, as well as manhood, is really recognised.

The Temporary Chairman: That does not arise.

Mr. Garro Jones: Not only do I suggest that it does arise, but that it goes to the very root of the system. How can the Minister set up even a skeleton to deal with food defence supplies until he has received instructions from the Government on their scope and scale? I will not pursue the question of conscription if you, Sir, rule against it, but I will deal with some more subsidiary aspects of the principle. The first thing I should like to satisfy myself about is this. I believe that the Government, both in their food Defence plans and their armaments plans are making the mistake of over centralisation of production and storage facilities, and if that applies in the case of armaments, it applies with all the greater force in the case of food supplies. Let us take water, for example, which presumably comes within the category of food. Some people, I believe, do not recognise it is a very important part of their diet, but the water supplies of the country might prove to be a very weak part of our national Defence if they were not properly organised. We should find enormous quantities wanted for anti-fire purposes, and if a war progressed to such a state, which is not at all impossible, that our enemy,


in his desperate extremity, took to the use of bacteriological warfare, the country might, with no notice, find itself in a very sorry plight indeed.

The Temporary Chairman: That has nothing to do with the Board of Trade Vote.

Mr. Garro Jones: The information that we have is that this is the staff of the Food Defence Department. You cannot separate the staff from the work that they have to do. You cannot tell whether the staff is adequate or not without knowing the work which it has to carry out. This is the first time the House of Commons has had an opportunity of discussing the food plans of the Government and, if the Minister finds himself unable to confine the Debate to such narrow limits, he will have to take some part of the blame for not giving a more comprehensive statement of what the money is to be spent upon. I will not pursue the point beyond reasonable limits, but I want to get satisfaction on this point, first, that the main principle of food Defence and food distribution is one which will encompass the whole of the production and distribution facilities of the country, and will not leave one class of farmer and one class of distributor to make a fortune, and another hardly able to make enough to keep his farm going. I should like some assurance that there is to be no over-centralisation of production and distribution.
I will give one example which I am particularly concerned about. In the case of any prolonged warfare, canned food would form a most important part of the sustenance of the nation. You cannot can food, strangely enough, without cans. I believe the Government are relying almost entirely on one district, if not one factory, for the production of practically the whole of the cans that will be used. I should like some assurance, first on the main principle, secondly on this question of over-centralisation; and, thirdly, on the question of adequate methods to deal with the kind of foods which will be available. I will give one further example of the kind of thing that I have in mind. During the siege of Kut the troops came to the border of starvation. The white troops were eating a different class of food from the Indian troops. They were not being interchanged. If they had given the white troops 25 per cent. of what the

Indian troops ate and the Indians 25 per cent. of what the white troops ate, they could have carried on the siege for many more months, as the diet of each contained essential elements which were lacking in the diet of the other. Take cereals and peas. I believe peas are wholly inadequate to sustain life for any length of time unless they are put to sprout in suitable conditions, and if they are put to sprout for a few days they produce vitamins and essential elements which without that process would make them useless for the purpose.
I am not satisfied that the Government are tackling these questions with vision and breadth of view. I have recollections of the last War, when we were always being assured that everything was going on splendidly. I was a very simple subaltern then with great confidence in the High Command, but since those days that confidence has been shattered, and it has never been less marked than I find it to-day with regard to the general architecture of the Defence scheme of the Government. We are dealing now with a vital part of that scheme, and before the Committee votes this small but significant sum, it will demand assurances along the lines that I have indicated.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Banfield: I want to deal with this question from the point of view of the ordinary baker. We are asked to-night for a small Vote whereby to staff the Food Defence Plans Department, and I suggest that of necessity we are entitled to ask what this Department is to do, how it is to be staffed and whether it is to set up advisory committees to deal with various aspects of the question? What, in short, is the Department going to do to ensure that, in the unfortunate event of war, the people of this country will be fed? There is no more important Vote that can come before this Committee. I would really have thought that the agriculturists in this House would have paid special attention to this particular Vote. Here we are setting up an absolutely new Department to deal with a very vital aspect of national defence. You may build as many ships, armaments and all the rest of it as you like; you may spend your £1,500,000,000 but if you have no food with which to feed the country the war would undoubtedly be lost. I want to draw the attention of the Minister to this fact. I am a baker with some special knowledge


of the baking and the milling industry. Bread is a vital need in any scheme of feeding the people of the country. As long as they are able to obtain bread, the population will not starve.
When, some 40 odd years ago, I first came into the industry with which I am connected, there used to be not one flour mill, but pretty well a dozen flour mills in every important town in the country. In Birmingham, Worcester, Leeds, Manchester, Chester, in almost every inland town of any importance, you would find not one miller, but half a dozen millers. There has been rationalisation in the milling industry, and I am afraid that the Government hardly realise the position of that industry to-day in relation to this very important aspect of national defence. We have very few mills. They are all situated on the sea coast. In the city of Birmingham, where I served many years as an operative baker, we used to have 12 mills within the vicinity of the town, but to-day there is not a single mill. There are no mills left in the provincial towns. The mills are in Hull, Liverpool, on the East Coast and the West Coast and at Southampton, and they are all very vulnerable. The granaries are situated alongside these mills, and in a war such as we visualise to-day, I can imagine nothing easier than for enemy aircraft to destroy a very vital part of our food supply in a very short time indeed.
The fact that the mills are situated where they are, and that there are no mills in the inland towns, presents a problem to which the Food Defence Plans Department must pay attention. It is so easy to talk about granaries and the storing of food. I would call the attention of the Minister to the fact that there has been a great surplus of wheat in the world for the last five or six years. The result of that surplus has been that people have stopped sowing wheat, and the point I want to make is that, if you start to hoard wheat now and put in into the granaries within the next 12 months, the inevitable result will be to create even a greater shortage of wheat than that from which we are suffering at the present time. These are problems which this Department will have to tackle. If this plan is to work, the Department will, in the very nature of things, be one of the most important Departments we could have.
The question of foodstuffs requires a tremendous amount of inquiry. There is the possibility of storing food, inquiry as to where we are to get it from and the ways and means employed to bring it here. I hope that the Minister will not tell us that, in asking these questions, we are premature. Surely, it is essential at the very beginning of the setting up of a Department of this character, that we should have some assurance as to the actual work which it is proposed that the Department should carry out. The personnel is of the utmost importance. I can imagine nothing more calculated to break down the moral of the nation in time of war than the fact that it might not be able to obtain bread because the mills had been destroyed, and there were no mills left to grind the wheat we had in the country.
I trust that the Minister will realise that men like myself, who know something about feeding the people of this country with bread, are very much concerned about this question. We want to know, among other things, about the baking of bread in the event of war, and to point out to the Minister that it is not in the interests of the nation that the trustification of the bakery trade should continue to the extent that it prevails to-day, with the result that we may have a very small number of places in which to bake bread in order to provide food for the nation, all of which might be destroyed in the event of air raids. Consequently, the seriousness of the position is obvious, and I hope that the Minister will endeavour to give as much information as possible, and that he will believe that, in asking these questions, we have a sincere desire to benefit the interests of the country.

9.24 p.m.

Mr. Graham White: I had no intention of speaking in this Debate until I heard the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield). My sole purpose in intervening is to assure him, I hope with the assent of the representative of the Board of Trade, that the situation is not really as difficult as he assumes it to be. He speaks with great knowledge of the milling industry. I think that I may say without fear of being challenged that, for the efficient way in which it carries out its work, the milling industry ranks as high as any


industry in the country. When we come to consider the work that will have to be done by officials of the Board of Trade and those concerned with this Vote, we have to remember that they will be able to rely on the immense experience of the milling trade and the assistance, experience and knowledge which have been amassed by the corn trade of this country, which by common consent is one of the most efficient importing trades in the whole of our commercial system. They have imported at the cheapest possible rates and with the lowest possible expense to the community at large.
Therefore, I sincerely hope that whatever else the Parliamentary Secretary may say when he comes to reply, he will not inform the House that they intend to rely for information and guidance of their policy on officials who may be appointed and who, however able they may be, cannot in any short space of time expect to compete in, their knowledge and experience with those who have given their lives to considerations of this kind. I have no connection with either the milling industry or the corn trade, but I have for many years watched as a matter of interest its operations, and they have always excited my admiration as being the way in which an efficient business should be conducted. I think I would not be going beyond what people in the trade would say if I were to assure the House that if advice and help are required they will be freely offered and freely available.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: May I join with my hon. Friends who have spoken and say that we are entitled to ask for the fullest possible information on this Vote? It is setting up an important Department. I want to put two or three questions. The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shin-well) mentioned this question of the vulnerability of various parts of this country. I am told that South Wales has one advantage. South Wales has lived for so many years in a period of disadvantage and depression that we almost welcome the news that if there were aerial warfare South Wales because of its topography would be the safest part of this country. Will the committee which is being set up deal with the question of the production of food supplies in this country? Surely it will be part of their job to look after the home front, the

feeding of the home population during war time?

Dr. Burgin: In my opening statement I made it quite clear that the Department was not directly concerned with home agricultural production, which will remain under the Minister of Agriculture as before.

Mr. Griffiths: In the last War we had frantic appeals from the Government to turn every square yard of land into allotments. In Wales, which is the least vulnerable part, there are 20,000 fewer men employed on the land than there were 20 years ago. I remember attending a conference during the War which was convened to hear the present President of the Board of Trade deal with the question of rationing food during war time. Is that to be given some consideration by this committee?

Dr. Burgin: Dr. Burgin indicated assent.

Mr. Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman came down, addressed the conference, made earnest appeals on behalf of the Government, and said that the production of coal and the production of coal per head were declining. He met men who were working in the pits. They put to him this problem, "How can you expect us to work in a pit producing coal when we get the kind of bread which we do get, and when we get not butter or cheese? If you want us to produce coal for this nation you must feed the people who are to produce it" In the great Soviet Republic of Russia when there was a question of food shortage they drew up a system of rationing, and the Government decided that the first claim must be that of the workers in the heavy industries, steel-workers, and coal-miners. During the War I worked as a miner and we did not get a chance of a hot meal or a cup of tea. We had to rely on snacks. We took bread, which crumbled in our hands. We had no cheese or butter. I gather that the Parliamentary Secretary said that the Committee would work out plans by which the available food would be fairly distributed. In a period of emergency the test should be—some of us say that this test should apply always—what is needed to enable these persons in industry to continue serving the nation. We deplore the possibility of an emergency again, but if there is such an occasion in the future we hope that the Committee will draw up plans by


which food will be distributed and that the first claim, after that of those engaged in the fighting, will be the claim of those who are producing essential commodities. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) asked whether the committee would deal with the question of storing food by canning. There are people in South Wales and elsewhere who are devoting considerable attention to this subject. Will advantage be taken of the knowledge they have gained?

9.33 p.m.

Mr. Chater: The Parliamentary Secretary said that any question about the policy of this new Department was premature. We are now considering the salaries of a Department which already, we learn, has appointed 66 persons as its staff, and one would imagine that already there must be in the mind of whoever is in charge some idea of the policy which this Department will be called on to administer. As one who represents in some small degree the consumers of this country through the cooperative movement, I am naturally very much concerned about whether part of the duties of this staff will be to endeavour to regulate in some manner or other the inevitable rise in food prices which must ensue. When the Minister said that any question of policy was premature at the present time my mind immediately reverted to what is already happening in connection with the Government's defence policy. It may be true that some step will be taken in regard to costing for contracts, in order to check the huge profits which capitalist industry will endeavour to extract from the country's extremity, but I would remind the Minister that at the present time we are witnessing a phenomena with which, so far as we are aware, the Government have taken no steps to deal. Contracts for the manufacture of aeroplanes, etc., may very well be subject to costing, but what about raw materials, and certainly food may be classed as raw material. I cannot imagine any system of costing being applied to them. The question will be that of controlling the price of foodstuffs somewhere at the point of entry into the country, or entering into contracts at prices agreed upon which shall not be excessive in the circumstances.
In regard to raw materials, to which food is comparable, we have witnessed to-day the wildest scramble in the base metal markets that has occurred since 1914. Before the Government complete their contracts the prices of everything which they require have enormously increased. I can imagine that when it comes to a question of the staff, for which we are about to vote the money, being called upon as part of the machinery for creating large storages of food in this country to provide against the eventuality of war, then it will be necessary to make very big contracts ahead, and I should like to know from the Minister whether his remark that policy is premature at the moment applies, or whether the Department will not have already invented some means whereby when it purchases these huge supplies of food for storage, steps will be taken to see that excessive profits are not made on the contracts. I speak as one who represents the great Co-operative movement, and who remembers the experience we had in the last War, an experience which we are very anxious should not be repeated under the conditions which are coming into existence. Myself and other hon. Members who represent the Co-operative movement would not have been in this House today if the Government during the War had taken steps to see that when the rationing of food supplies was carried out the Co-operative movement was taken into consultation and treated as fairly and squarely as the great capitalist concerns. I hope the Minister will give us some assurance on the points that I have raised.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Burke: I should like to be assured on one point which has been raised in the House recently without much satisfaction. I refer to the poultry industry, which will be essential to us in time of war, and which at the present time is going very rapidly into bankruptcy. I take it that the new staff for which the Vote is required will have to co-ordinate and possibly overlap the work of the Ministry of Agriculture. The predecessor of the present Minister of Agriculture, in a broadcast talk, said that it was the definite policy of the Government to see that as much of our food as possible was produced at home at a price that would not be ruinous to the people concerned. This great branch of agriculture, the


poultry industry, is being killed at the present time because of the fact that imports are coming in from abroad.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Malcolm Barclay-Harvey): The hon. Member cannot discuss that subject on this Vote.

Mr. Burke: I wanted to ask whether the Minister, who is responsible for the imports, will give us an assurance that something will be done to guarantee that this industry will be there in time of need, if war comes? I want to show that if things continue as at the present time the industry will not be there to provide us with food in emergency, because of the fact that it is being killed by very large importations, which we cannot rely upon in war time. It is obvious that in a war we shall have to rely upon our own production at home to a very large extent. We shall not be able to guarantee that the supplies that come from abroad will be as accessible as they are in peace time, and I should think it will be the policy of the Department to build up as far as possible our own resources, so that we shall not be nearly so vulnerable in time of war. I think I am entitled to ask the Minister to give careful attention to that point. Owing to the very large imports that have taken place recently this industry is suffering very much and the market is being demoralised as a consequence. A great many people who are in the industry were encouraged to enter it by the Government, particularly through smallholding schemes. I hope that something will be done to protect the industry, so that it will be there if war time comes.

9.43 p.m.

Dr. Burgin: The Debate has been most helpful, and I am grateful to hon. Members who have taken part and have drawn attention to the very natural interest which arises from any mention of the Food Defence Plans Department. I hope the Committee do not think that in my opening remarks I dealt with the matter too sketchily or too light-heartedly. I was in genuine doubt as to the type of information which the Committee desired me to give. In consequence, I concentrated my attention on the type of matters which the Department had been called into being to solve, and did not deal in detail with the staff. I note from the discussion that the Committee is closely interested in the staff, and a number of

helpful suggestions have been made in regard to matters which ought to be taken into consideration. Let me remind the Committee that they are not hearing of this matter for the first time. The constitution of the Department appeared in announcements on 28th November of last year, when it was pointed out that the head of the Department was the second secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture, who was seconded from the Ministry of Agriculture by reason of his special experience in problems of this sort. There are two assistant directors, one of whom served in the Ministry of Food and afterwards in the Ministry of Agriculture, while the other has had Board of Trade experience, including the secretaryship of the Food Council.
The Department was established as a sub-department of the Board of Trade and its staff has been recruited exclusively by the transfer of civil servants employed in other Departments of the Board of Trade and from other Government Departments. The staff has been recruited exclusively within the Civil Service. The work is necessarily of a 'highly confidential character and will involve close contact with a number of other Government Departments connected with preparations affecting the civil life of the country during war. For these reasons it was thought well that the staff should be exclusively civil servants. The salary of the director is £2,200, plus an allowance of £300, the assistant directors £1,150, the principals £800 and the chief staff officers £680. The total number of the personnel is 66, including 21 clerks, superintendent typists and shorthand typists and a certain number of other officers. The sum of £6,200 for which I am asking in the Vote, or rather which forms part of the total amount, is a forecast as from the 7th December, 1936, to the end of the current financial year, and hon. Members who have attempted to make an estimate as to what the Department will cost over a period of 12 months are substantially right.
The Department is in essence temporary. It has been set up to deal with a particular situation which it was thought made the setting up of such a Department both necessary and urgent. Its scope is mainly to continue and complete the formulation of plans for the supply, control, distribution and movement of food, including foodstuffs for livestock,


as part of the general preparations for national Defence. It also includes the preparation in advance of plans for food control with a view to these plans being put into operation immediately in time of emergency. Also the preparation of plans for the setting up of a Ministry of Food with proper local organisations; food committees in each area, with a divisional officer responsible to the Ministry of Food; and the best method of maintaining uninterruptedly the flow of food supplies. All these things come within the purview of the Department.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the Parliamentary Secretary say something on the kind of representation there will be on these local committees?

Dr. Burgin: I think it is much too early. A Department which was set up in November, which has to recruit its staff and deal with the task of formulating food plans in the event of emergency, cannot be expected within a couple of months to give to the House its conclusions on matters of policy, but I agree that the point mentioned by the hon. Member must be taken into consideration. I have no idea what will be the final decision as to the constitution of the local organisations. I imagine they will be modelled on previous experience. The whole point is to secure a better and an uninterrupted supply of foodstuffs and proper distribution. The hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) is pushing at an open door. Of course, steel workers and miners require food of a different character, and no doubt the best joints of beef will be given to them. The rationing of the individual consumer can only be effected as part of the general system of control when the whole machinery for the control of distribution is under consideration. The plans will deal with consultations with trade organisations, marketing boards, statutory bodies, and there need be no fear on the part of the co-operative movement that the Department will not co-operate with them, having regard to their special knowledge on a number of these points.

Mr. Shinwell: Has any approach yet been made to the co-operative societies?

Dr. Burgin: The hon. Member has on his own Front Bench the right hon. Member 1or Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) as an answer to that question.

Mr. Shinwell: I have not in mind any question of representation on any particular committee set up by the Government, with which some right hon. Member sitting beside me may be associated; I am thinking of what approach has been made to the co-operative movement in relation to the decentralised organisation of which the Parliamentary Secretary has spoken.

Dr. Burgin: I was not referring either to matters to which the hon. Member was not referring. I was answering his express question. I was asked whether communications or approaches had taken place between the Co-operative movement and the Government, and my answer was "Yes," and that assurances had been given that advantage will be taken of the special knowledge which the Co-operative movement has in matters which will be dealt with by the Department. A number of most helpful suggestions have been made during the Debate, but I think questions relating to policy are premature. I do not take the view that it is necessary to solve your problems before you set up your staff to consider them. When the Government as a matter of urgent necessity decided that it was desirable to set up a new Department to consider these problems and to carry on, under one Department, the general discussions which had been taking place over a long period of time, they thought it was desirable to give the Department the best expert assistance possible. That has been done. We have given them a staff, and seconded to them such officers as have special knowledge. The programme on which they are engaged is to formulate all these various plans, and questions of policy to which hon. Members have given voice tonight will be taken into account. But it is too early to announce their solution.

9.54 p.m.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: I apologise to the Parliamentary Secretary that because of another urgent engagement I have not heard the whole of the Debate. I am making no complaint on behalf of the Cooperative movement of any lack of consultation, but I am concerned that the Committee should not be lulled into a sense of false security by the kind of answer we have had from the Parliamentary Secretary. The greatest folly of all in 1914 was the lack of proper provision for dealing with this class of war service, the food of the country. In the War Book, as it


was known in July, 1914, there was no reference at all to the consumers' movement. It is really approaching the matter from the wrong angle, and the Parliamentary Secretary in preparing for the next war and in forming a department for the supply of services says that it is too premature to decide anything. We ought not again to be put in the position that existed in the case of the War Book in 1914. It is true that the Parliamentary Secretary has said that they will learn by experience and will act on experience gained, but Parliament ought not continually to be asked to vote money in this respect unless it knows what it is getting for that money.
There is another aspect of the matter. The Parliamentary Secretary made a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) which purported to be a reply to quite important strategical questions raised by my hon. Friend. No one would expect the Parliamentary Secretary to give a detailed account of what steps are being taken to deal with strategical problems, but one is entitled to ask for some assurances of a kind that will give confidence to the civilian population concerning the steps that are being taken. We are not asking for details, but what is the nature of the steps that are being taken? When one considers the dangers from air warfare, when one considers the distribution of cold storage, granaries and warehouses for food reserves, how many are within what might be called vulnerable areas subject to air attack, and how many are in non-vulnerable areas? We ought to have assurances that proper steps are being taken in that direction. I feel that the Parliamentary Secretary was unwittingly far too short in his answer on that point, and I hope he will give an assurance to my hon. Friends who made these representations. I gather that

unless they can get some assurance, they would prefer to divide at once and to show that they have not yet been given adequate information.

9.57 p m.

Dr. Burgin: Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite must take their own course, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) does me an injustice. I realise the importance of these strategical questions, and therefore, in my opening remarks, I made a statement in order to allay anxiety. I will repeat that statement. The work of the Food Defence Plans Department has a very close bearing on the work of other Departments concerned with the home front, such as the Air Raid Precautions Department of the Home Office and the Ministry of Transport. It is necessary that the Department should work in the closest co-operation with the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence. The Department reports, through the President of the Board of Trade, to the appropriate Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence. Of that Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence which deals with this particular subject matter, the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence is the Chairman.

9.58 p.m.

Captain Heilgers: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether, in view of the fact that he did not reply to the hon. Member opposite who referred to the poultry industry, the agricultural industry and the outlook of that industry is of no concern to his Department, and, further, whether the fertility of the soil is also of no concern to his Department?

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £3,900, be granted for the said Service"

The Committee divided: Ayes, 92; Noes, 177.

Division No. 87.]
AYES.
[9.58 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Chater, D.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Cluse, W. S.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)


Adamson, W. M.
Cove, W. G.
Groves, T. E.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Day, H.
Hardie, G. D.


Sanfield, J. W.
Dobbie, W.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)


Batey, J.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)


Bellenger, F. J.
Ede, J. C.
Hopkin, O.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Jagger, J.


Benson, G.
Gallacher, W.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.


Bromfield, W.
Gardner, B. W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)


Brooke, W.
Garro Jones, G. M.
Kelly, W. T.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Gibbins, J,
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.


Burke, W. A.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Lathan, G.


Cape, T.
Grenfell, D. R.
Lawson, J. J.




Lee, F.
Parker, J.
Thurtle, E.


Leslie, J. R.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Tinker, J. J.


Logan, D. G.
Potts, J.
Viant, S. P.


Lunn, W.
Price, M. P.
Walkden, A. G.


Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Pritt, D. N.
Walker, J.


McEntee, V. La T.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Watkins, F. C.


McGhee, H. G.
Ridley, G.
Watson, W. McL.


Maclean, N.
Riley, B.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Ritson, J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Mainwaring, W. H.
Rowson, G.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Marshall, F.
Sexton, T. M.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Maxton, J.
Shinwell, E.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Milner, Major J.
Short, A.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Simpson, F. B.



Naylor, T. E.
Smith, E. (Stoke)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Oliver, G. H.
Stephen, C.
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Mathers.


Paling, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)





NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Furness, S. N.
Owen, Major G.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Patrick, C. M.


Agnew, -ieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Peake, O.


Albery, Sir Irving
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Penny, Sir G.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Gluckstein, L. H.
Petherick, M.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Goldie, N. B.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Granville, E. L.
Pilkington, R.


Assheton, R.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Radford, E. A.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Grimston, R, V.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Ramsbotham, H.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Guy, J. C. M.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Blindell, Sir J.
Hanbury, Sir C.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Bossom, A. C.
Hannah, I. C.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Remer, J. R.


Brass, Sir W.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Bull, B. B.
Holmes, J. S.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hopkinson, A.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Cary, R. A.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Casttereagh, Viscount
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hulbert, N. J.
Selley, H. R.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Hunter, T.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Channon, H.
Jackson, Sir H.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Keeling, E. H.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D J.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lees-Jones, J.
Sutcliffe, H.


Cross, R. H.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Tate, Mavis C.


Crossley, A. G.
Levy, T.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Culverwell, C. T.
Liddall, W. S.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Loftus, P. C.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Denman, Hon R. D.
Lumley, Capt. L. R.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Denville, Alfred
McCorquodale, M. S.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)



Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
White, H. Graham


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Maitland, A.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Dugdale, Major T. L.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Duncan, J. A. L
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Eastwood, J. F.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Windsor-Olive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Markham, S. F.
Wise, A. R.


Ellie, Sir G.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Emery, J. F.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Wragg, H.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Errington, E.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)



Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Everard, W. L.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Commander Southby and Sir Henry


Findlay, Sir E.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
 Morris-Jones


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.



Question put, and agreed to.

Question,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1937, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade, and Subordinate Departments, including certain services arising out of the War,
put, and agreed to.

MERCANTILE MARINE SERVICES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for the Salaries and Expenses of certain Services transferred from the Mercantile Marine Fund and other Services connected with the Mercantile Marine, including Services under the British Shipping (Assistance) Act, 1935, the Coastguard, General Register and Record Office of Shipping and Seamen, and Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: Under sub-head C.2 of this Vote there is a reference to
increased expenditure on travelling necessitated by increased activity in shipping and shipbuilding and the more intensive supervision of shipping 
Some time ago the Parliamentary Secretary gave an assurance that the surveyors would show increased activity and that more surveyors would be appointed. Is it possible for the hon. Gentleman to amplify what appears in this Supplementary Estimate?

Dr. Burgin: Apart from the extra work arising from the revival of shipbuilding helped by the shipping replacement scheme, increased work beyond what was anticipated when the original Estimate was framed has arisen from the wreck inquiries and from the need for a more stringent survey of cargo ships from the point of view of seaworthiness. There was the loss of three ships laden with coal, which meant that increased attention had to be given to the loading of coal-carrying ships. Then we have had the Sea Fish Commission. The President of the Board of Trade has announced that the Government have accepted the recommendation of that Commission in regard to the survey of fishing vessels, and a definite start in the work by increasing the marine survey staff of the Board of Trade has already been made. To the question asked by the hon.

Gentleman the answer is in the affirmative.

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £25,900, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for the salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, including grants and grants in aid in respect of agricultural education and research, eradication of diseases of animals, and fishery research; and grants, grants in aid, and expenses in respect of improvement of breeding, etc., of livestock, land settlement, improvement of cultivation, drainage, etc., regulation of agricultural wages, agricultural credits, and marketing, fishery development; and sundry other services.

10.12 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): This sum of £25,900 is arrived at as follows: There is additional expenditure under various sub-heads amounting to £87,900 and savings under other sub-heads of £76,900, leaving a net charge of £11,000. There has been a shortage of receipts from appropriations-in-aid of £14,900, making the net total required of £25,900. I shall deal with a number of the matters covered by this Vote and I shall be glad to answer any questions that may be asked. Under Sub-head G.3.—"Agricultural Education,"—there is a small sum of £750 for grants-in-aid of annual expenditure of colleges and institutions. The Committee may be interested to know that the whole question of veterinary education is being investigated by a committee, and until it has reported we shall not properly know what are the requirements for the future conduct of this vital part of agricultural education. This sum is for the maintenance of the Veterinary College as it is at present, pending the receipt of the report of the committee and a detailed scheme of veterinary education.
With regard to sub-head H.1, which covers grants for diseases of animals, the additional sum of £48,300 includes £40,000 on grants for compensation in respect of foot and mouth disease. That is a very difficult item to estimate, and our experience last year would indicate what that difficulty is. There were no outbreaks at all during the first five


months of the financial year, but between 1st September and the date of the submission of the Estimate there were 65 outbreaks. In this case we are estimating for expenditure in this year on any outbreaks which may occur before 31st March. On the item with regard to cattle slaughtered under the Tuberculosis Orders there has been an increase which is due to two factors. One is the increasing vigilance of the local authorities and the farmers in reporting disease in their herds and making use of the provisions for its elimination. That is a healthy symptom. The other is that in many cases animals are being condemned at an earlier age when they are normally more valuable, and that also may be taken as a healthy symptom, showing that both farmers and local authorities are taking their duties seriously in this matter and are making progress in dealing with this vital problem of cleaning up our herds.
With regard to land drainage the increased sum now asked for arises chiefly in this way, that whereas provision was made on the basis of existing schemes of catchment boards, either by way of loan or by way of grant, recently an increasing number of catchment boards have asked us to assist them by direct grants, paying the expenses of their works out of revenue and not upon loan. That leads to an apparently increased expenditure, which in the long run is not a real increase at all. With regard to the item under subhead L.2 relating to the Agriculture Credits Act, 1923, I would remind the Committee that under that Act and the regulations framed thereunder, borrowers were enabled to pay back what they had borrowed at any time without paying the fine which is customary in these cases for paying back too promptly.

Mr. Benson: Do I understand the Minister to say that the regulations under which private borrowers repay to the Public Works Loans Commissioners were fixed under the Agricultural Credits Act?

Mr. Morrison: Provision was made in the Act as to the method by which repayments were normally to be made, but this particular Act was passed just after the Corn Production Act was repealed, when many farmers had bought their land; with the idea that that legislation was to be permanent,

and it was in those peculiar circumstances that the regulation was made to enable the borrower to repay at any time without the customary fine. The same regulation provided for charging any loss of the Public Works Loans Commissioners to the agricultural Vote and that is the subject which now appears on the Estimate. I shall be glad to answer any question which any hon. Member cares to ask about these items, each of which is relatively small in amount, though they constitute the total I have indicated.

10.19 p.m.

Mr. Benson: I should like to know the Treasury Minute under which private borrowers under the Agricultural Credits Act are treated more favourably than local authorities. If local authorities wish to repay the Public Works Loans Commissioners prematurely, they have to pay a very stiff premium in certain cases, but private borrowers under the Agricultural Credits Act are allowed to repay the bare amount of their indebtedness, without any premium. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] But this item on the Estimate is part of the amount found by the Treasury in order to compensate the Commissioners, and these borrowers, as I say, are entitled to repay at any time without making any compensation at all. Farmers are bad borrowers, and the losses are so heavy that the Treasury are only too glad to get their money back at any price, but there are certain cases where the loans are adequately secured, and I see no particular reason why the Treasury Minute should apply to all private borrowers, irrespective of the security. I think it is perfectly good policy for the Treasury to say, if there is a loan inadequate in security, "We will get that money back if we can," but where the loan is fully secured, I see no reason why the farmer should be entitled to repay his money without premium, thereby throwing a very definite and heavy loss on the Treasury. Why does not the Treasury Minute stipulate that where a loan is paid back, if there is adequate security, the farmer shall pay his premium, and that only where there is not sufficient security, the money should be repaid without the premium?

10.22 p.m.

Captain Heilgers: I should like to congratulate the Minister on the result of the National Stud. The excess of receipts


over payments in connection with the National Stud is £3,000, and that is a very different tale from the results which we had two or three years ago, when the National Stud was almost dormant. The only thing that I would like to suggest is that the National Stud, being situated in the Irish Free State, is not doing its full job and that it would do very much better if situated in this country. I understand that there are some legal difficulties in the way of transferring to this country, and I should like to ask the Minister whether that is the case. If it is not the case, I would like to suggest that there are much better and much more useful areas for promoting British bloodstock—

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. and gallant Member cannot, I think, discuss the National Stud on this Vote.

Captain Hedgers: I think it appears on page 17, Sir Malcolm. I only want to point out that I would like to see it transferred to this country, and there is, in my opinion, no more suitable site in this country for the headquarters of the National Stud than Newmarket.

10.24 p.m.

Sir Edmund Findlay: There are two points about which I would like to ask information on this Vote. The Minister must realise as well as any Member of this Committee that the situation of agriculture is a very grave one. I see that he anticipates a saving in salaries of £31,700, and I should like to have an explanation why there are these salary savings. Where research is so essential, not only in connection with foot-and-mouth disease, but also in connection with epizootic abortion and other diseases of livestock, how is it that these savings in salaries are effected? The item G.5 raises the question of agricultural research grants. The Government are proposing to make a saving of £21,500 on this Vote. After the speeches lately made by the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, I do not think it is reasonable to suggest saving on agricultural research grants. Before this Vote is passed the Minister should, I suggest, give us some explanation of why, when so much attention has been paid by this Committee to agriculture in the scheme of National Defence, he proposes to make savings in salaries and research grants.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. Short: There are one or two matters on which, I think, we might have fuller information. I understood the Minister to say that the additional sum of £750 was due to further grants made to the Royal Veterinary College. I welcome the expenditure in connection with that College, and I should like the Minister to give us a fuller statement as to facilities for education and progress in the erection of the building. Further, I would remind him and the Committee that that very eminent and distinguished veterinary surgeon, Sir Frederick Hobday, has recently left that College, and that another distinguished professor, I think from Cambridge or Oxford, has been appointed. I should like him to explain why Sir Frederick Hobday was removed just at this stage, after he had devoted many years of successful effort to the creation of this new College. There was a good deal of public controversy at the time of his supposed resignation, and I should like to know whether the Government had anything to do with his resignation, or his dismissal—I think his resignation—whether they implemented it in any way, and whether the gentleman who has followed him is as competent as Sir Frederick Hobday proved himself to be. The Minister referred to the constant outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease and the very lareg expenditure of money incurred in consequence. At the same time, as the hon. Member for Banff (Sir J. Findlay) has indicated, they are priding themselves upon saving £21,500 on research. I should like to know what measure of research is going on into foot-and-mouth disease, and whether we are likely to overcome the disease, to achieve our aim to secure its ultimate suppression. Perhaps the Minister will explain why we are saving money on research while at the same time spending an increased sum of money on foot-and-mouth disease.
Then there is the question of land drainage. I think we are entitled to know what schemes have been put forward by the catchment boards. In the Bentley area of my own Division of Doncaster there have been two serious floodings—not during the lifetime of this Parliament—and there is great anxiety among the people in Bentley as to whether there will be another flood, particularly having regard to the continuance of rain and of flooding taking place in


the country. I understand, for instance, that the Ouse Catchment Board have erected some barrier, but I should like to know whether the Minister is confident that that barrier is sufficient to prevent further flooding of my constituents in the Bentley area. If it is not, what is the use of paying further grants to catchment boards who are not fulfilling the original intentions of Parliament and of the Act of 1930? If the Minister will answer my questions, to the satisfaction of myself and of those who sit behind me, perhaps he will get away with his Vote without a Division.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. Maitland: I would ask the Minister two questions in reference to the Land Drainage Act. Has he had any general complaint with regard to the incidence of the drainage rates? In the Division which I represent, and particularly in the town of Sheerness, there has been a great deal of indignation about the amount of the rate. From investigation which I have made I believe that that resentment is well founded. I have taken the liberty of communicating with the Minister on the subject, but it is seldom that one has an opportunity of raising such a matter on the Floor of the House. I should be glad if the Minister would answer my question, and if he will say also whether he can give me information as to any change likely to be made in the incidence of the rates upon the ratepayers of Sheerness. The town is not by any means rich, in a material sense, and the rate is very heavy upon the poor people. I believe it should not be levied. It may be that my questions are very much upon the borderline of being out of order, and if so, I thank you, Sir Malcolm, for your consideration.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. Leslie: A question I would put to the Minister in regard to drainage rates is in relation to the Special Areas. They were told that the Government would allow 75 per cent., but it is impossible for a distressed area to find the further 25 per cent., when public assistance is costing approximately 9s. in the pound as against an average for the rest of the country of less than 3s. Is it not possible to stretch a point in the case of the distressed areas and to give the full grant, so as to enable work to be found for

the unemployed? I think that the Minister will agree that there has been a terrific amount of flooding this winter, and it is particularly hard upon the distressed areas that they cannot be given a grant to enable them to find work for their unemployed.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Maxton: I want to ask the Minister for information about the savings upon research grants. There is a saving of £21,500 under Sub-head G.5, and a saving of £2,200 under G.6, both for research. The other night the Minister brought in a Money Resolution asking for a sum of money for research into the diseases of fish. Now he comes, almost at one and the same time, intimating that he cannot spend the money he has got for research in these Departments. He is asking us to vote more money—the Minister shakes his head; if he will rise and explain to me, I will conclude at once. I understand that his is the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, and I notice that among the appropriations-in-aid here he has one from the whaling industry. He is drawing £1,100 from whales. Surely the man who is looking after whales can also look after salmon. At the time he brought in his Money Resolution about the blisters on salmon, I asked him why this could not be done in the routine work of his Department, which, as I understand it, deals with agriculture and with fisheries, both sea and freshwater. I imagined that he had perhaps exhausted all the money he had for research. But now I find, from this Supplementary Estimate, that he has something like £23,000 in hand, and I want to know from him why he is saving this money here and putting the House to the trouble of passing new money to him, and, indeed, of passing new legislation, when we have already enough in hand.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. Quibell: If I were able to influence the Committee, personally I would not give the Minister any more money at all, because the administration of land drainage is nothing short of a scandal. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Max-ton) spoke about the whaling industry, but industry in some of the flooded parts of England is becoming a weeping and wailing industry, owing to constant and ever-recurring flooding. As you, Sir Malcolm, have allowed an allusion to be


made to an area which is particularly affected, namely, Sheerness, perhaps I might also briefly refer to another district that is particularly affected—the Isle of Axholme. On previous occasions we have urged the Ministry of Agriculture to get a move on in order to take the fullest possible advantage of the 1930 Act, and to give grants of an adequate character to remove some of the injustice of heavy rating in these drainage areas. I can tell the Committee of a particular case which shows the need for action. In the Hatfield Chase area, a certain farmer whom I know rented a farm. He rented it from Hatfield Chase. Finally he bought it, and he now pays more in drainage rates than he paid in rent when he rented it, before he became the owner of the farm. In the Isle of Axholme, an important area, it is nothing less than a scandal that the work has not been done. Land is flooded, and time out of mind the attention of the Minister has been drawn to it both by letters and by interviews, definite promises have been made that relief would be given in some of these areas that are so heavily hit, but no relief of a character that is useful to them has yet been given.
In one area, only about the width of this House, on that side there is a heavy drainage rate and on this side none whatever; on that side a jam factory and on this a brewery. The jam factory pays a very heavy drainage rate, the brewery escapes without paying a halfpenny. The Ministry is well acquainted with every detail but has not taken a step to remedy that grave injustice in that little place. When you suggest new legislation, they say it is a matter of administration and, when you suggest that it should be remedied by administration, they say, "We are looking into it." Meanwhile these people are being summoned and are being called upon to pay tremendous rates, and in some areas there is no land drainage at all. In some of these areas the overlapping authorities have no income and cannot carry out their duties. The benefits that ought to have been conferred upon agricultural land by the 1930 Act have been largely discounted because the grants have not been adequate.

10.42 p.m.

Sir Ernest Shepperson: I should like to endorse the hon. Member's criticism. I noticed that when he termed the land drainage of the country scandalous he

received the endorsement of hon. Members behind him. I should like to remind them that the scandalous position of land drainage is clue to the Socialist party's Act of 1931.

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member cannot go into that question.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. MacLaren: I should like to reinforce what has been said with regard to this land drainage problem. I was instrumental in bringing to the Minister's predecessor a deputation from the House on the whole problem of the cost of drainage. We were armed on that occasion with data which to the most casual eye seemed quite invincible and should have convinced any Minister of the urgency of the task lying ahead and the unfairness of the costs as they were apportioned between the cities and the county areas. The Minister received us very nicely and said he was very sympathetic and, with a very fixed stare at me, he said, "Look here, how am I, as Minister of Agriculture, to go back to Scotland to the distressed agriculturists and the distressed areas of Glasgow and tell them that we are going to put a general tax on them so that we can give a subvention to some drainage scheme down in the South of England?" He did not meet the figures that I gave. I will repeat them, because I want the present holder of the office to face the difficulty.
May I give the figures of the Trent Catchment Area, because the other catchment areas have been given already? Doncaster has always been very keen to look after itself. The other catchment areas agreed generally to stand together and to fight for the general relief of land, but I am bound to say that Doncaster did not altogether play the straight game. They went outside for little advantages of their own. I will give the Trent Catchment figures. The area of the Trent Catchment is also 2,750,000 acres. The estimated expenditure upon the scheme in the Trent Catchment area, less Government grant of 30 per cent., is £1,564,000, or 12s. 1½d. per acre, and the aggregate contribution from the county boroughs of the Trent Catchment area is £944,253, or £5 4s. 11d. per acre. The contributions from the county councils in the catchment area are £620,597 or 5s. 3d. per acre. The county boroughs in the Trent Catchment area, therefore, contri-


bute £20 5s. 4d. for every pound contributed by the county councils. These figures show that the main cost of these drainage schemes is largely imposed upon the thickly populated city areas. In the Trent Catchment area alone, if you take Birmingham, the annual contribution towards the drainage scheme runs into thousands of pounds, whereas Birmingham really gains no advantage out of the drainage scheme at all. The advantages of much of the drainage work redounds to the credit of the agricultural areas.
In my own area of Stoke-on-Trent we have to contribute annually a large sum towards the drainage scheme of the Trent area, and we practically get no advantage from it whatever. The costs are pooled for the whole area, and farming land that would otherwise be under water is drained and the major cost of these undertakings is thrown upon the thickly populated areas of the cities. I should be out of order to suggest remedies, but I want to be quite frank and say that the proposals which I have heard made as to what would be the way out of the difficulty have, I can assure the Committee, not altogether met with my approval. There is the difficulty of the low land and the high land, as to who should pay the most; whether the man on the low land should pay more than the man on the high land, and whether the man on the high land should pay more than the man on the low land. I have a shrewd suspicion that to arrive at the proportion of contribution to be made in each case would be to find out who is the person who gains most by the drainage, or, to put it in a negative way, what would happen to a certain holding of land if no drainage were carried out?

The Temporary Chairman: I think that that is really a question for the main Estimate, and not for the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. MacLaren: That is what I say. I was merely suggesting that the methods adopted so far do not meet with my approval. I was going to tell the Committee what I might have said in other circumstances, but I have said enough to hint at that. Here is the point which I want to put to the Minister. He has come here for the first time, and I congratulate him in more ways than one, because he has come into a frightful heritage. His

predecessor has simply thrown about his neck problems which will require the stamina of an enormous fellow to attempt to solve. I want him to meet another deputation. But enough has been said to indicate to any new holder of the office that he has a problem to face here and that he has much to straighten out. I hope that in his reply he will tell us something more of the complaints that have been submitted to him, and what proposals, if any, are in the minds of the Ministry as to how these disproportionate charges are to met, or indeed if there is any programme to meet them.

10.51 p.m.

Captain Harold Balfour: I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture one question about the poultry industry, and I think that you will find that I am not out of order in the manner in which I endeavour to raise this particular question. There are in the anticipated savings, B, G.2, G.4 and G.5, savings in travelling expenses, agricultural education grants and agricultural research expenses. It is within the knowledge of all Members of the Committee that the poultry industry is in a very desperate state at the present time, and I feel that it would be the wish of the Committee that none of the moneys saved under these particular sub-heads is saved in respect of education, research or travelling expenses in respect of the duties in looking after the poultry industry carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture. If we could have this assurance it would give us some measure of content in respect of the greater feeling of misgiving that we have for the future of the poultry industry. If we could feel that the Minister has not saved one penny under these sub-heads, that the saving for research is not a saving in respect of the amount of feeding stuffs that can be fed to a chicken in order that it shall lay more eggs, if we can be assured that the minimum amount of food required by a chicken is being investigated by the Ministry of Agriculture without any effort to save on the moneys granted by Parliament, then I feel that the Ministry of Agriculture in respect of the great chicken problem will have a greater degree of confidence on the part of hon. Members than before.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. Price: I should like to support the hon. Member in regard to the matter of research in the poultry industry. I


would go as far as to say that one of the main problems before the industry to-day is the fact that certain diseases are liable to be rampant at certain times of the year more than was the case, and there is evidence that the general stamina of the flocks in this country is not what it was a few years ago. For a number of reasons I venture to think that the time has come when the research institutions should look more deeply than they have hitherto into the whole question of the method of keeping poultry. I would like to support those who in this discussion have called attention to the fact that there is money saved here apparently on research, and to express the wish that the Minister will in future devote more money to research in the poultry industry.
I would like to refer to one other point. I could not quite understand what he said in regard to the grant for veterinary research. Some years ago the Veterinary College at Camden Hill came to an end. Now I understand that there is no central research station in this country for veterinary work. At Cambridge and other universities they have research stations where veterinary work is being done. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain to what purpose the £750 is going? I could not gather what proportion was for veterinary work and what proportion for other work. What kind of institution is envisaged in the near future, and what plans are being thought out for the purpose of improving our work in veterinary surgery?

10.56 p.m.

Mr. McKie: I should like to support the plea made so vigorously by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Captain Balfour), whom I congratulate on his ingenuity in keeping within the bounds of order. His plea was supported by the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price), who, I know, is very sympathetic to agriculture but whose party associations perhaps prevent him from giving to us that support on agricultural matters which we should like. We desire the National Government to do even more for agriculture than they have already done. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet drew attention to several sub-heads in the Vote and asked my right hon. Friend to give an assurance that he was not effecting these savings in such a way as to make more hard the lot of those who are

suffering through the crisis in the poultry industry. I hope that I am well within the bounds of order in saying these few words, and in supporting the plea made by my hon. and gallant Friend. It is the first time that I have had the opportunity of intervening on any agricultural matter since my right hon. Friend was appointed to his present position, and I shall he very interested to hear what he has to say.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) asked for the date of the Treasury Minute. I am sorry that I cannot give him the exact date, but I will inquire, if it is a matter of importance to him. The first repayment under the Act was in 1930. I cannot allow to pass unchallenged his statement that farmers are a bad lot.

Mr. Benson: I never said that. I said they were bad payers.

Mr. Morrison: I think the hon. Member used the term "bad lot." If he says that they are bad payers, I would point out that if that were so there would be no need for this Supplementary Estimate, which is simply to meet charges because a certain number of farmers have paid their debts to the State before the clue date. Several hon. Members stressed what they thought was some constriction of the provision for research. The Committee ought to be reassured on this point. There is no doubt that agriculture presents many problems wherein research is required. The bulk of the expenditure which is chargeable under this head is recoverable from the Development Fund. The saving of £22,400 arises from the postponement of certain capital charges which have not become payable. For example, part of the sum is for additional land for the Veterinary Laboratory which has not become payable, and will have to be re-voted next year.

Sir E. Findlay: Can the Minister tell us why? Have there been any difficulties in this matter?

Mr. Morrison: Provision was made for buying additional land for the Veterinary Laboratory in the financial year, but other factors have meant that it has not been possible to proceed with this work this year, and the money will have to be re-voted. The provision was made in case the negotiations went through in the present financial


year, but as this has not been the case, the sum will have to be re-voted. I can assure the Committee that these savings on capital expenditure are due in some cases to the estimates which were made for capital expenditure which had not fallen due. The saving of £22,400 is partly off-set by an excess of £900 on the provision for special research work. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) asked why if there was this excess for agricultural research work in this financial year, it was necessary to provide a sum of £600 or £700 for research work under the Diseases of Fish Bill. The answer is that the Fish Bill is not yet through Parliament.

Mr. Maxton: My point was why was that legislation needed for a bit of research work which I imagined would have been the routine work of the right hon. Gentleman's Department?

Mr. Morrison: The provision in the Fish Bill for £600 was to meet expenditure in the coming financial year, and the reason why it was necessary to make that provision was because no provision had hitherto been made for it. The £600 for research work under the Diseases of Fish Bill is not research work comparable to the present case, it is only to pay a man to test fish to see whether they are suffering from furunculosis or not. The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Short) wanted to know why Sir Frederick Hobday has retired. He seemed to suggest that the Government were responsible for his retirement. I can assure him that something even more powerful than a Government was responsible—age. I can assure the hon. Member that the great services of this distinguished gentleman have been fully appreciated. The research into foot-and-mouth disease has been carried forward with the utmost energy and some of the results obtained have been very creditable.
With regard to floods and the catchment boards, the Committee will understand that, under the 1930 Act, the duty of initiating works to combat floods rests with the new catchment boards. I have no power to initiate works of that character, and I can only assist as far as I can. If I tell hon. Members that there are at present approved works which cost a total of £6,000,000, they

will see that the new bodies have taken to their duties very seriously, and I hope that in the course of time their operations will be attended by the abatement of this menace which so much affects many parts of the country. The Committee must have a certain amount of patience with regard to floods. Very often the works have to be done on a very great scale, and it takes a long time for the labour and expenditure to bring obvious results. Often they have to wait on the winds, tides and weather, and very often, in very small places, it is only possible to have a certain number of men at work at a vital place at the same time. Moreover, there is at this time a shortage of skilled labour for this sort of work. These things make the problems less easy of rapid solution than they might otherwise be.
The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Maitland) and other hon. Members drew attention to the drainage rates which, they asserted, were causing dissatisfaction in some parts of the country. Of course, the feature of recent legislation which has given rise to the state of dissatisfaction which has been expressed in the Committee was the change made, in the 1930 Act, in assessing the liabilities to drainage rates, from an acreage basis to an annual value basis. It is not very long since the Act was passed, and there is no doubt that, as a consequence of it, many people who had never paid drainage rates before have had to pay them. I would only say, in answer to hon. Members who have drawn attention to this matter, that the Act contains several provisions whereby, by arrangement among the local authorities concerned and the catchment boards, the burden of drainage rates, if it bears excessively upon any section of the community, may be sensibly eased. I hope hon. Members will wait to see how the 1930 Act works before they criticise too much, and take as much advantage as they can of those provisions which alleviate, by rearrangement of the area, some of the difficulties which have hitherto been experienced. I think I have answered most of the questions which have been asked, but I did not imagine that this discussion would close without a reference to the poultry industry.

Mr. Quibell: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication as to when he is going to take the administrative action


that has been promised, in order to remedy the grievance of rating, which his side moved as an Amendment to the Land Drainage Bill in Committee?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Amendment was made by your side."] I am sure I would not attempt to get out of my responsibility by stating that the Amendment was moved by someone on the other side. However, I am not concerned with that question of ancient history; let us face the present and the future. I wish I could promise some sort of legislation that would provide an easy solution for this difficulty, but we already have a very congested programme. I must ask hon. Members to do what they can within the provisions of the Act. With regard to the particular case of the hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell), we have already done what we can to help, and are still considering the matter. Of course, we have no power to coerce the local authorities or the catchment boards.

Mr. Maitland: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that I asked a specific question with regard to the Isle of Sheppey? I pointed out that 600 or 700 summonses had been issued, and I asked him whether he could hold out any hope that steps would be taken to relieve the present position.

Mr. Morrison: I understand that the hon. Member has received a full reply from my hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions on this matter. If there is anything further about this particular case which he wants to know, perhaps he will let me know. Generally, in regard to the hon. Member's locality, I think he will find that the new catchment board for the Kent Rivers will materially ease some of the difficulties. To return to poultry, the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet (Captain Balfour) inquired about poultry research. I can assure him that we are prosecuting research very keenly, and are not forgetting the question of the stamina of poultry stocks, which is among the problems being investigated by a Departmental Committee. To the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, I would say that the £750 for the Royal Veterinary College is for maintenance of existing activities. The whole question of veterinary education is the subject of an inquiry by a committee set up for that purpose. Until we have

received the report of that committee, it would be premature to incur large capital expenditure or to make plans for the future of veterinary education. In the meantime we are making such grants as are necessary for the maintenance of the institution. When we get the report we hope to make a decided step forward.

Question,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £25,900, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, including grants and grants in aid in respect of agricultural education and research, eradication of diseases of animals, and fishery research; and grants, grants in aid, and expenses in respect of improvement of breeding, etc., of livestock, land settlement, improvement of cultivation, drainage, etc., regulation of agricultural wages, agricultural credits, and marketing, fishery development; and sundry other services,
put, and agreed to.

CATTLE FUND.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for a Grant to the Cattle Fund.

11.12 p.m.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): Early last year when the original Estimates for 1936–37 were approved by Parliament, the subsidy payments under the Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) No. 2 Act, 1935, were due to cease on 30th June, 1936. Accordingly, the original Estimate of £1,069,000 covered only the three months of April, May and June. The Cattle Industry No. 2 Act, 1935, provided an extension of the subsidy up to the beginning of November, 1936, on an order made by the Minister and approved by Parliament. An order made on the 15th June, 1936, extending the period to 31st October, 1936, and a supplementary estimate for further funds from 1st July, 1931, to 31st October, 1936, became necessary. When the supplementary estimate was presented in July, 1936, it was foreseen that permanent legislation could not be passed before 31st October, 1936, and that an extending Measure would be necessary. Therefore, under the Financial Resolution preceding the Cattle Industry (Emergency


Provisions) Act, 1936, a supplementary estimate in July, 1936, made provision for Cattle Fund for the remainder of the year to 31st March, 1937. The additional sum was £2,930,900, making £3,999,000 for the financial year 1936–37.
The further provision of £100,000 makes the total provision for the year £4,099,000. That extra sum is needed because of the increased number of animals certified from August to December last year. It was anticipated that 668,000 cattle would be certified in this period compared with 661,000 in the corresponding period in 1935. In fact 691,000 cattle were certified. The Committee will realise that it was difficult to forecast precisely the number of animals presented and qualified. The figure depends on the number of home-bred cattle and the number of imported stores eligible after three months. The increase between August and December was due to the increase of store cattle from the Irish Free State in the first nine months of 1936 compared with 1935, this increase being partly offset by reduction of stores from the Irish Free State in the last three months of 1936 compared with 1935. Mainly for the reasons stated more cattle came forward than we anticipated when the July Supplenientary Estimates were framed. As the additional sum for which we are now asking is only 2½ per cent. of the total Estimate I think the Committee will agree that it is reasonable in view of the impossibility of making an adequate and precise forecast of the amount required.

11.16 p m.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: It is necessary to point out that the statement just made by the Minister of Pensions proves what we on this side have argued in regard to this subsidy. The fact that this additional sum of £100,000 is required shows as we said that the present method of subsidy is putting additional cattle on the market. Instead of doing what we want it to do, namely, to improve the quality of the animals the subsidy has up to the present actually put a larger number of animals of an inferior quality on the market and helped to defeat to some extent the purpose which was in view. As there is to be an amendment of the basis of administration of the subsidy, we shall not tonight make a long protest against this Supplementary Estimate such as we otherwise would have made. On the details of

the Estimate, it would be interesting to know what steps the Government propose to take with regard to the item in respect of compensation for injury to members of certifying authorities. Is this provision by way of premium for insurance to cover any possibility of injury or is it a request to the Treasury to provide £300 in respect of ex-gratia payments actually made in cases of injury? If so, it is a rather heavy charge and some better care ought to be taken with regard to these matters than apparently has been taken up to now. If animals are taken to certification centres there ought to be some arrangement to secure that they do not injure people. It ought not to be difficult to do so and in any case the Government ought to proceed by way of premium and insurance rather than specific payment.

Question,
That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £100,000 be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for a grant to the Cattle Fund,
put, and agreed to.

SURVEYS OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for the Expenses of the Survey of Great Britain and of minor Services connected therewith.

11.19 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: This Supplementary Estimate arises from the fact that in recent months there has been a greatly increased demand made upon this fund by reason of the requirements of the Services and of the Tithe Commission. That is the cause of the original gross Estimate being exceeded but the appropriations in aid for this extra work will it is confidently anticipated exceed the expenditure, and this is therefore a token Vote.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. Attlee: Will the right lion. Gentleman say something with regard to the savings on this Vote? All we have had is an increase in the pay and allowances for the ordnance survey for preliminary purposes and a reduction of the ordinary pay. The survey, particularly in urban areas, ought to be brought up to date.

11.21 p.m.

Mr. Morrison: I can only say in answer to the right hon. Gentleman that the savings in pay and allowances are consequent on the establishment of military staff engaged in survey work having been incomplete throughout the greater part of the year, and consequently we did not get the number of, military officers that we thought we should get. The same thing is true as to the pay of the civil side. Recruitment for the additional staff which we thought we should get for this work has proved slower than was anticipated. It is due to our not having been able to get either on the military or the civil side the personnel which we hoped to get that we have made the savings.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. Benson: But here you are increasing the amount paid to the military staff, therefore there cannot be the same explanation as there is for the saving on the civil staff. They are putting on 12 men extra, as well as putting on the staff estimated.

Mr. Morrison: Yes, but we thought we should have the original number for a greater part of the year than we were able to have on the military side as well as on the civil side.

Mr. Benson: The Minister says that in the original Estimate they made allowance for having more military staff than they actually got, but the Estimate includes an Excess Vote for military wages. If the right hon. Gentleman's explanation is correct, a saving should have been shown.

Question,
That a Supplementary Sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for the Expenses of the Survey of Great Britain and of minor Services connected therewith,
put, and agreed to.

Ordered,"That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Captain Margesson.]

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

WAYS AND MEANS.

REPORT [18TH FEBRUARY].

DEFENCE LOANS.

Resolution reported,
That it is expedient—

(1) to authorise the Treasury, during the five years ending on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and forty-two, to issue out of the Consolidated Fund seems not exceeding in the aggregate four hundred million pounds to be applied as appropriations in aid of the moneys provided by Parliament for the Navy, Army (including Royal Ordnance Factories) and Air services for those years:

Provided that the amount so issued in respect of any service for any year shall not at any date exceed the aggregate of the amounts proposed to be so issued in respect of that service by the estimates upon which this House has, before that date, resolved to grant sums to His Majesty to defray expenses for that service for that year;

(2) to authorise the Treasury, for the purpose of providing money for the issue of sums as aforesaid or for replacing sums so issued, to raise money in any manner in which they are authorised to raise money under and for the purposes of subsection (1) of section one of the War Loan Act, 1919, and to provide that any securities created and issued accordingly shall be deemed for all purposes to have been created and issued under the said subsection (1);

(3) to authorise the old sinking fund to be used in the said five years for providing money for the issue of sums as aforesaid instead of being issued to the National Debt Commissioners;

(4) to provide for the repayment to the Exchequer, out of moneys provided by Parliament for the said services in such proportions as the Treasury may direct, of the sums issued as aforesaid with interest at the rate of three per cent. per annum as follows:

(a) until the expiration of the said five years interest only shall be payable;
(b) thereafter the sums so issued shall be repaid, together with interest, by means of thirty equal annual instalments of principal and interest combined;

(5) to provide for the application of sums paid into the Exchequer under the last foregoing paragraph, so far as they represent principal, in redeeming or paying off debt, and, so far as they represent interest, in paying interest otherwise payable out of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt."

Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

11.25 p.m.

Mr. T. Johnston: Before authority is given to borrow this money I think it is expedient to raise, very briefly, a vital and important principle which is embodied in this Resolution. I have two questions to put to the Chancellor, and I am emboldened to put them because I know that he had one great struggle in his existence in which he succeeded with the bank interests of this country. He achieved a municipal bank in Birmingham only after a long and arduous struggle with the banking interests. I am, therefore, emboldened to put my questions to him because I know that he is au fait with the subject, and, I believe, is capable of facing up squarely to a new departure which must be taken sooner or later if we are to escape the great burden of usury which threatens to crush us all. I am putting my questions rather from an individual point of view, and I do not pretend that I am representing every hon. Member on this side of the House.
The Macmillan Committee, so called because it was presided over by Lord Macmillan, had among its members eminent figures in the banking world, including Mr. Reginald McKenna, Lord Bradbury and Mr. Brand, and it explained to us clearly and at length precisely how credits for lending purposes are raised. I am not going to quote the report in detail, because the right hon. Gentleman is well aware of the unanimous conclusion of the committee on this point, but for every £100 of deposits, cash in a bank, that bank is permitted to raise credits and lend to the extend of nine times, or thereby, the amount of cash and deposits in its possession. These credits the banks create and they lend at interest, and what is happening here, as I understand it, is that the Government are proposing to borrow £400,000,000 of credit created in that manner. The Chancellor proposes to pay an interest of 3 per cent. per annum for five years on that credit of £400,000,000 created by the banking interests on the basis of the cash and deposits in their banks.
In 1927 another Government committee was appointed. There was one eminent banker on it and other two gentlemen well versed in financial affairs. This committee dealt with the problem of the Post Office Savings Bank, and inquired whether it was advisable that it

should be placed in the same competitive position as the private banks. Every private bank has the right to give its depositors a cheque book, but the Post Office Savings Bank has no such right. The Post Office Savings Bank is therefore very heavily handicapped in competition with the private profit-making banks.
This committee, by two to one, decided against the Continental system of issuing to depositors in the Government Post Office Savings Bank cheques for fixed amounts which would be redeemable against the deposits in their accounts. The other member of the committee boldly recommended that the Post Office Savings Bank Department should give to its depositors the liberty accorded to the depositors in any private bank. Nothing has been done with either the majority or the minority reports of that committee. I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the grave financial emergency that is now upon us, he would consider the advisability of giving to Post Office depositors a cheque book. If they had that cheque book—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): I have been waiting to see how the right hon. Gentleman would relate the report of the committee to this Resolution. I do not sec how he can discuss the reform of the Post Office Savings Bank system on the Report stage of this Resolution.

Mr. Johnston: I am going to do it very briefly, with your permission, by showing that if the Post Office Savings Bank depositors were brought into this system, large sums of money—many millions of pounds—would be transferred from the private banking system, as it is now in operation, to the Post Office Savings Bank. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer could get £500.000,000 or £1,000,000,000 more into the Post Office Savings Bank, as I believe he could if he introduced a cheque book system, he could have his own cash basis there, and could find, by credits created on that cash basis, which the Chancellor could realise, without the necessity to pay—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry. The right hon. Gentleman is out of order in proposing methods of that kind on the Report stage Dl this Resolution.

Mr. Johnston: With very great deference, I would remind you that we are being asked to authorise the borrowing of £400,000,000 at interest. I am seeking to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider carefully an alternative method which will avoid the necessity of paying interest upon this money. I bow to your Ruling, and if you say that we cannot ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider any such proposal I will, of course, sit down; but I submit, in the national interest—this is not the first loan to be borrowed, or the last—that we must face this usury system. I could give, if I had time, and this was the appropriate occasion, instances in British history where we have escaped the toll of the usurer. I am asking the Chancellor, before it is too late, to consider afresh the report of this Committee and to see whether it is possible, even now, to avoid interest going to the private banking system and paying interest upon credits which have accrued, and upon which the banks are going to reap something in the neighbourhood of £12,000,000 per annum. I submit that it is our bounden duty to see whether we can escape that toll.

11.35 p.m.

Mr. Stephen: On the Committee stage I put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I did not get an answer. I would like to repeat that question, which is as to the amount of money that is to be spent by this country, and the comparative amounts spent by other countries, since the War. I asked for the figure since the last War till 1933. The case made all along with regard to the need for this loan has been that other countries have spent so much more than this country on their defences. I questioned that statement, and I thought that, since the Government are taking responsibility in this matter, and are basing their case so much on what has been spent by other countries, they would be able to give us some comparative figures. I have gathered from private conversation that those figures could not be obtained—that this Government cannot tell what other countries have spent; but I thought that at least they might be able to give some indication, and I believe it is a matter of great importance that we should have some indication of these comparative figures when the country is being launched into this expenditure.
An appeal was made for national unity with regard to the scheme of defence for which this loan is to be raised. I want to-night to say again that this idea of national unity appears to me to be quite an absurd proposal when one thinks of how the present National Government came into office, of their general attitude to the working class, and of how they have treated the working class. I would also point out that it is hoped that when the bosses in this country fall out with the bosses in another country, the workers in this country will be prepared to go and give their lives in the quarrel which the bosses of this country have with the bosses of another country. All this money is being asked for from the workers of this country in order to put the bosses here in a position to carry on when they come into conflict with the bosses of another country. I believe that the workers here should find their function, not in alliances with the bosses of this country, but with the workers of other countries. I protest against this tremendous expenditure upon the instruments of death, and hope that the workers here and the workers in other lands will see to it that this wasteful expenditure is stopped in each of the countries, and that there will be a programme of peace based upon an international working-class movement.

11.39 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Chamberlain): After what you have said, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, with reference to the matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston), the House will have seen that it is not one concerned solely with the proposal that is before the House at the present time. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will have further opportunities of putting forward the view which he has expressed. With regard to the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), I would point out that the question he put to me was not based on anything that I said in defending or advocating the proposal before the House. I never mentioned the argument he has used. He seems to have based his remarks rather on what he thought I was going to say than on what I actually did say. As a matter of fact, in my speech on this proposal I never mentioned the armaments of other countries. But, whatever may be said, it is obvious and


well known to everyone that armaments have been proceeding in other countries at a very great pace, and the Government's proposals are based on that fact, and not on the fact that they know what has been spent in the past. As for the figures for which he asked, he knows very well that many countries do not publish figures. It is impossible to get them.

11.41 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: The Chancellor swept aside the questions of my right hon. Friend, but I do not think the Deputy-Speaker ruled that the question was out of order. He was perfectly entitled to ask a question as to whether the Chancellor had considered a certain method of financing the loan. Mr. Deputy-Speaker did not suggest that that was out of order. What he suggested was out of order was discussion and a long argument relating to it. However, the Chancellor swept it aside and, no doubt, if he had set himself to answer it, he would have explained that it was unorthodox finance, and in that explanation he would have convicted himself on the larger issue which he discussed the other day. He was content to sweep on one side the argument as to orthodox finance as being theoretical. He was content to sweep aside the view, which large numbers of people who know what they are talking about hold, as being merely economists' chatter, pretending not to understand the point and making light of it. The Chancellor can do that if he likes, and he can go on doing it as long as he likes, but he cannot sweep aside facts.

There is one question on which we shall see in a very short time who is going to be right. Are commodity prices going to rise or are they going to remain stationary or to go down? That will be found out in the course of time, and we shall see who is right. There is another matter on which we have already had a practical test. The effect of the Chancellor's announcement has certainly been to depress the Funds. He cannot call that a theoretical argument, because it surprised every Member of the House, and I think the right hon. Gentleman must have been surprised at the extent to which the Funds have gone down since his proposals have been known to the country. I shall not be so foolish as to prophesy as to the future, but it is perfectly clear that for a moment the proposals have had a most depressing effect. If the right hon. Gentleman goes on pursuing similar methods the arguments against which he thinks are merely theoretical, he will find that the depressing effect on the credit of the country will continue. We shall certainly oppose the Vote.

11.45 p.m.

Sir P. Harris: The right hon. Gentleman has been asking for information about the effect of the Chancellor's statement and the White Paper on prices. If he refers to the evening paper to-night, he will find that tin, copper and zinc soared up to famine prices, and that, in the financial columns, it was attributed to the White Paper of the right hon. Gentleman.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 154; Noes, 87.

Division No. 88.]
AYES.
[11.45 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Bull, B. B.
Emery, J, F.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Cary, R. A.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.


Albery, Sir Irving
Castlereagh, Viscount
Everard, W. L.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Findlay, Sir E.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Channon, H.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E, Grinstead)
Fremantle, Sir F. E.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Furness, S. N.


Assheton, R.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Fyfe, D. P. M.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Ganzoni, Sir J.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Gluckstein, L. H.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Goldie, N. B.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Grant-Ferris, R.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Culverwell, C. T.
Granville, E. L.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Blindell, Sir J.
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H
Grimston, R. V.


Bossom, A. C.
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Guy, J. C. M.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Duggan, H. J.
Hannah, I. C.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.




Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Maitland, A.
Remer, J. R.


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Makins, Brig-Gen. E.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Holmes, J. S.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Hopkinson, A.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Selley, H. R.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Hulbert, N. J.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Hunter, T.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Jackson, Sir H.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)


James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Keeling, E. H.
Muirhead. Lt.-Col. A. J.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Sutcliffe, H.


Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Tate, Mavis C.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Palmer, G. E, H.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Patrick, C. M.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Leckie, J. A.
Peake, O.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Liddall, W. S.
Penny, Sir G.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Petherick, M.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Loftus, P. C.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Lumley, Capt. L. R.
Radford, E. A.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


McCorquodale, M. S.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Wise, A. R.


Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Ramsbotham, H.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Wragg, H.


McKie, J. H.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)



Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. James Stuart and Mr. Cross.




NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Groves, T. E.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Potts, J.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hardie, G. D.
Price, M. P.


Adamson, W. M.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Pritt, D. N.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Ridley, G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Jagger, J.
Ritson, J.


Banfield, J. W.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland N.)


Barnes, A. J.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Rowson, G.


Bellenger, F. J.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Bonn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sexton, T. M.


Benson, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Silkin, L.


Broad, F. A.
Lathan, G.
Simpson, F. B.


Brornfield, W.
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Brooke, W.
Logan, D. G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Burke, W. A.
Lunn, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Chater, D.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Stephen, C.


Cove, W. G.
McEntee, V. La T.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Dobbie, W.
McGhee, H. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dunn, E. (Rather Valley)
MacLaren, A.
Tinker, J. J.


Ede, J. C.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Watson, W. McL.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Marshall, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Frankel, D.
Maxton, J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Messer, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Milner, Major J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Gibbins, J.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Oliver, G. H.



Grenfell, D. R.
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Paling, W.
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Mathers.


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Parker, J.



Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Duff Cooper, Sir Samuel Hoare, Sir Thomas Inskip, Lieut.-Colonel Colville, and Sir Philip Sassoon.

DEFENCE LOANS BILL,

"to provide money for the Defence Services, and for purposes connected therewith," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 90.]

HARBOURS, PIERS AND FERRIES (SCOTLAND) [REMISSION OF DEBT].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the acquisition and construction by local authorities of harbours, piers, ferries and boatslips in Scotland, for the construction of new works connected therewith, and for the fixing and revision of dues thereat and at certain inland


navigation undertakings, and for other purposes relating to the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the Secretary of State, by order, to make such provision as seems to him necessary with regard to any liabilities in respect of loans granted or deemed under the provisions of the aforesaid Act to have been granted to local or harbour authorities out of moneys provided by Parliament for the purposes of marine works the maintenance of which such authorities have resolved to discontinue under the provisions of the said Act."—(King's Recommendation signified)—[Mr. Wedderburn.]

11.56 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: It cannot be right that the Financial Resolution of a Bill so far-reaching as this should be allowed to pass through Committee without any explanation. I am not aware of what arrangements have been made through the usual channels, but I am certain it was not agreed that the first mention of a Bill of this kind should pass through Committee without any explanation. The Bill contains 40 Clauses, it empowers local authorities in Scotland to acquire a large number of works, it exempts the largest of the modern works, and I should like to know for what reason this Measure is being brought in, on what grounds the Government justify the exemption of certain of the larger harbours, and to have a general statement on the provisions of the Bill.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): When I moved the Second Reading of the Bill I explained as fully as I could the extent of the financial part, which is very limited, and is concerned with the provisions of Clause 19. It only concerns the discontinuance of certain works, and has nothing to do with any grants that may be given for construction, improvement,

or maintenance. The Committee will see from the Financial Memorandum attached to the Bill that there is no direct charge on the Exchequer, but where a harbour is discontinued the Secretary of State may make provision for outstanding liabilities affecting the harbour, including liabilities in respect of loans granted out of money provided by Parliament. It is added that it is not possible to form an estimate of the amount of loans that will require to be written off, because it is not known what piers and harbours will be discontinued. It is an exceedingly small point in relation to the whole Bill. The Financial Resolution is simply concerned with the piers and harbours that may be discontinued under the Bill.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

DEAF CHILDREN (SCHOOL ATTENDANCE) BILL.

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time upon Wednesday.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Monday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Four Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.